*The great masses of people more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one.
*How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
*The leader of genius must have the ability to make many opponents appear as if they belong to one category.
*Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
*I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
Hitler and the Nazis were stridently anti-intellectual, for the very good reason that people who think critically are very difficult to manipulate. They were very big on feelings: from mawkishly sentimental art to the deliciously transgressive license of a good riot. In fact the rioters only feel liberated; they're actually doing their masters' bidding.
Movements like the Nazis are more accurately described as authoritarian. Liberal or conservative, pro-labor or pro-management are positions such a party takes for sake of expediency. They had no problem with contradicting themselves; they always fit their position to the occasion. They were "National Socialists" when gaining support from disaffected workers was vital, but as soon as they had their hands on national power immediately violently purged the socialists from their ranks.
There is really one and only one consistent feature of their ideology: Führerprinzip or the leader principle. That basically means leaving the thinking to the higher-ups. If your superior seemed to contradict himself, that wasn't your problem, it was his.
It's always about personalities with authoritarians, and the leader can say or do no wrong.
Not really. Accessing your secured assets always requires some secret, possibly encoded in hardware (something you have). But robust security reduces the secrets you depend on to a single easy to protect secret, like a private key.
Security by obscurity refers to trying to using weak methods and hoping nobody notices.
It's important to understand this, because you're making it sound like a well choosen high entropy password is no better than rot13. In fact passwords can still work pretty well, if you can force an attacker to search a large key space by brute force.
Hypothesis testing is obviously the foundation of science, but it's not the whole thing. There's also building on the successes and failures of others, and thinking critically about your own experiments. Without those things you don't get far.
Here's why building on what other people have accomplished is critical to scientific results. Suppose this guy launches himself as high as he possibly can with his steam cannon. He doesn't see the curvature of the Earth. Impressive as his stunt may be, has he disproved anything? No. It just proves that his chosen method has failed. You need to evaluate methods other people have chosen to reach high altitudes and choose the best or improve on the best you can afford.
Here's a simple example of the importance of critical thinking: given his downrange goals (note he hasn't mentioned his altitude goals) I reckon he's not likely to exceed 500m in elevation. He could get to 8x that altitude simply by climbing nearby Mount Whitney. But even Everest isn't high enough, you need to get 50% higher. For that the best approach would be to build a high altitude balloon. The recent record breaking parachute jumps were done from manned balloons that rose high enough to see the curvature of the Earth (39 km), and a simple manned capsule would be even cheaper.
But if you really want to do science on a shoestring, an unmanned weather balloon is the way to go is an unmanned weather balloon, which is easily cheaper and simpler than trying to steam catapult yourself to 30+ km. In fact you can buy a weather balloon on Amazon for $100 that will reach 35km. That's not as high as the video above, but it's high enough to photograph the curvature of the Earth.
He isn't going get nearly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth... That'd be about 35000 feet, or about 10km. He's planning to travel a mile or so downrange, which assuming most of the flight is ballistic means he'll achieve less than a half km altitude.
And "ballistic" is a key point. It's not clear whether he's built an actual rocket or a rocket shaped projectile fired out of a steam cannon, but given the enormous weight of a steam pressure vessel I'm guessing it's a projectile. You wouldn't launch a steam locomotive into the air, you'd keep the heavy bits on the ground. Kind of like a carrier steam catapult.
That conjecture would be consistent with his last attempt, which travelled only a quarter mile yet left him disabled for several days with acceleration injuries.
Now if he were less antagonistic toward science he might perform a preliminary experiment: launch his capsule unmanned and measure the acceleration he'd experience. Its quite possible he would be dead or unconscious for most of his flight. A proper engineer could calculate a rough estimate of acceleration.
I agree that people use the term too loosely. The choice of terminology itself is misleading, since the criminal act is not hate per se; it's intimidation. It is not even necessarily motivated by hate, although it usually is.
For criminal law the default mens rea for strict liability offenses, IIRC, is negligence. For example if you travel faster than the speed limit, you don't need to intend to go faster than the speed limit, you need to intend to operate your vehicle in a negligent fashion.
If you'd been carjacked and someone was pointing a gun at you, you probably wouldn't be liable to speeding prosecution, even though you intend to operate your vehicle faster than the speed limit.
Usually because you collapse the model in all the directions that don't really matter to you.
You can think of this this way in principle, and that's important because otherwise when you move data from one domain to another you'd never be able to reconcile the different viewpoints under which data is constructed. But it doesn't take too much of that for the complexity to overwhelm your ability to get anything useful done, so even if it were possible to deal with all the issues like differences in opinion and limitations of human knowledge, you still can't hope to capture any kind of complex reality fully in a model.
The design implication is that when you are developing data interchange mechanisms (which was the focus of my study at that time) you need to aim for sufficient implication to be transferred between systems, but no more.
I've grown more and more in favor of the "object as a collection of interfaces" thought than belonging in some kind of family tree.
Thinking in terms of interfaces is an example of the kind of minimalism I'm talking about. Declaring that an object (or class) supports an interface ensures that it behaves properly in some context, and nothing more. This is what makes C++ multiple inheritance messy (or did, they may have fixed that in the twenty-five years since I've used C++).
On the flip side of that question, where's the legal compulsion to work if you don't think the pay is high enough?
Of course striking is fundamentally different than just deciding not to go to work; it's a collective action, one that attempts to establish a kind of monopoly leverage on employers.
There has never been immunity from legal consequences of speech in this country. Never. Libel, fraud, revealing state secrets, intimidation... even copyright infringement have been speech crimes since the very beginning. Nor has providing a forum or copyrighted material for speech you like ever been compulsory on private individuals.
While compulsory licensing is an issue, I'm not sure it applies here. What is the nature of the compulsion? You have to abide by the license or use different music, or no music at all.
This is a much lower burden on speech than having to comply with, say, social media TOS. If you don't comply with Facebook TOS you're excluded from an important forum for public discussion. If you don't comply with the bundled Windows license you can't use your computer (unless you can install Linux, which is trickier now with UEFI secure boot).
If you don't agree to a music license, you have to use different music. Even if *all* music providers stipulate you can't use music a certain way, it doesn't cut off access from anybody who wants to hear what you have to say.
Because it shows that the poster's conception of free speech is broken. There is no jurisdiction, anywhere, where you are immune from legal consequences for anything you say regardless of intent because it is *speech*.
It's actually not true that intimidation fits the legal definition of assault, at least in most places. It's its own crime. But even if it were technically rolled into "assault" it would not change the fact that it is also speech.
Intent is a part of every crime; without "mens rea" (guilty mind) there is no crime.
Suppose your neighbor comes from a country where fires in barrels carries a disturbing and threatening significance, but you don't know it. You burn a barrel of leaves on this lawn, but you have no mens rea as to the crime of intimidation; you have no idea. You're just guilty of trespass because that's all you intended to do, even though your act has the effect of terrorizing the victim.
Now suppose you burn a cross on his lawn, fully intending to scare him into moving away, however in his culture a burning cross carries no symbolic significance. You are guilty of threatening your neighbor because that was what you were attempting to do, even though the threat doesn't work; he's just mystified rather than intimidated.
Intentionally. However it's very easy to do that unintentionally.
For example, suppose your state bars felons from various things like owning a gun and voting. It exchanges lists of convicted felons with another state, however the states don't agree on whether specific crimes are felonies or misdemeanors. Depending on how you ask for the data, you can end up with different results.
My conclusion from my study is that using ontology technology for inter-organizational standards was a really bad idea because it exported baggage from each organization that creates problems for the other organizations. On the other hand the technology had potential uses internally (e.g. purging sensitive information from datasets being shared).
Basically RDF is really potentially useful in a lot of situations where people use XML, but OWL is asking for trouble.
If you take the ethical and legal theories under which underpin intellectual property seriously, you can sell the right to use your IP with any kind of strings attached you want, subject to statutory constraints only. A "license" is just a kind of contract, and if the contract says you can only perform a song on a sousaphone on alternate Tuesdays, if you perform it on a harmonica you're a pirate.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to endorse Torvalds' attitude here. But you encounter it, minus the armor of overwhelming fame, all the time when you work with multiple groups of stakeholders. As a system designer a lot of what you do when you develop system requirements is make localized concerns globally visible. But there are always people who don't see the needs of other users as important, and depending on how they're situated they can create a lot of grief.
People actually confuse "objective" and "subjective". I actually had a client once who even used those terms: we should focus on what's "objectively" important, by which he meant things that seemed obviously important to him. Things that were important to other stakeholders were "subjective" concerns. People do that a lot more than they realize, even if they don't use those terms. What's rare is having enough status to be an asshole about it.
Hate speech is speech that is calculated to instill fear in some group; specifically fear of exercising their civil rights.
The classic example is burning a cross. Compare burning a cross to burning a barrel of leaves over the line to your neighbor's property; that's just trespass. Burning a cross is about sending a message: it's not safe to live here.
Slashdot Mirror
This, folks, is straight from the authoritarian playbook: make it about personalities.
for the very good reason that they didn't want to happen in Germany what had happened in Russia 20 years earlier.
Which is why they made a peace treaty with communist Russia and invaded capitalist Czechoslovakia and Poland.
He tells you *exactly* how he intends to operate:
*The great masses of people more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one.
*How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
*The leader of genius must have the ability to make many opponents appear as if they belong to one category.
*Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
*I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
Hitler and the Nazis were stridently anti-intellectual, for the very good reason that people who think critically are very difficult to manipulate. They were very big on feelings: from mawkishly sentimental art to the deliciously transgressive license of a good riot. In fact the rioters only feel liberated; they're actually doing their masters' bidding.
The platform plank "kill all the Jews" is not compatible with a small government
Sure it is. You remove police and legal protection from the Jews, thus making your government even smaller.
Movements like the Nazis are more accurately described as authoritarian. Liberal or conservative, pro-labor or pro-management are positions such a party takes for sake of expediency. They had no problem with contradicting themselves; they always fit their position to the occasion. They were "National Socialists" when gaining support from disaffected workers was vital, but as soon as they had their hands on national power immediately violently purged the socialists from their ranks.
There is really one and only one consistent feature of their ideology: Führerprinzip or the leader principle. That basically means leaving the thinking to the higher-ups. If your superior seemed to contradict himself, that wasn't your problem, it was his.
It's always about personalities with authoritarians, and the leader can say or do no wrong.
Not really. Accessing your secured assets always requires some secret, possibly encoded in hardware (something you have). But robust security reduces the secrets you depend on to a single easy to protect secret, like a private key.
Security by obscurity refers to trying to using weak methods and hoping nobody notices.
It's important to understand this, because you're making it sound like a well choosen high entropy password is no better than rot13. In fact passwords can still work pretty well, if you can force an attacker to search a large key space by brute force.
Hypothesis testing is obviously the foundation of science, but it's not the whole thing. There's also building on the successes and failures of others, and thinking critically about your own experiments. Without those things you don't get far.
Here's why building on what other people have accomplished is critical to scientific results. Suppose this guy launches himself as high as he possibly can with his steam cannon. He doesn't see the curvature of the Earth. Impressive as his stunt may be, has he disproved anything? No. It just proves that his chosen method has failed. You need to evaluate methods other people have chosen to reach high altitudes and choose the best or improve on the best you can afford.
Here's a simple example of the importance of critical thinking: given his downrange goals (note he hasn't mentioned his altitude goals) I reckon he's not likely to exceed 500m in elevation. He could get to 8x that altitude simply by climbing nearby Mount Whitney. But even Everest isn't high enough, you need to get 50% higher. For that the best approach would be to build a high altitude balloon. The recent record breaking parachute jumps were done from manned balloons that rose high enough to see the curvature of the Earth (39 km), and a simple manned capsule would be even cheaper.
But if you really want to do science on a shoestring, an unmanned weather balloon is the way to go is an unmanned weather balloon, which is easily cheaper and simpler than trying to steam catapult yourself to 30+ km. In fact you can buy a weather balloon on Amazon for $100 that will reach 35km. That's not as high as the video above, but it's high enough to photograph the curvature of the Earth.
He isn't going get nearly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth ... That'd be about 35000 feet, or about 10km. He's planning to travel a mile or so downrange, which assuming most of the flight is ballistic means he'll achieve less than a half km altitude.
And "ballistic" is a key point. It's not clear whether he's built an actual rocket or a rocket shaped projectile fired out of a steam cannon, but given the enormous weight of a steam pressure vessel I'm guessing it's a projectile. You wouldn't launch a steam locomotive into the air, you'd keep the heavy bits on the ground. Kind of like a carrier steam catapult.
That conjecture would be consistent with his last attempt, which travelled only a quarter mile yet left him disabled for several days with acceleration injuries.
Now if he were less antagonistic toward science he might perform a preliminary experiment: launch his capsule unmanned and measure the acceleration he'd experience. Its quite possible he would be dead or unconscious for most of his flight. A proper engineer could calculate a rough estimate of acceleration.
I agree that people use the term too loosely. The choice of terminology itself is misleading, since the criminal act is not hate per se; it's intimidation. It is not even necessarily motivated by hate, although it usually is.
You are in effect compelled to work, but you aren't compelled to work for any particular employer.
For criminal law the default mens rea for strict liability offenses, IIRC, is negligence. For example if you travel faster than the speed limit, you don't need to intend to go faster than the speed limit, you need to intend to operate your vehicle in a negligent fashion.
If you'd been carjacked and someone was pointing a gun at you, you probably wouldn't be liable to speeding prosecution, even though you intend to operate your vehicle faster than the speed limit.
Usually because you collapse the model in all the directions that don't really matter to you.
You can think of this this way in principle, and that's important because otherwise when you move data from one domain to another you'd never be able to reconcile the different viewpoints under which data is constructed. But it doesn't take too much of that for the complexity to overwhelm your ability to get anything useful done, so even if it were possible to deal with all the issues like differences in opinion and limitations of human knowledge, you still can't hope to capture any kind of complex reality fully in a model.
The design implication is that when you are developing data interchange mechanisms (which was the focus of my study at that time) you need to aim for sufficient implication to be transferred between systems, but no more.
I've grown more and more in favor of the "object as a collection of interfaces" thought than belonging in some kind of family tree.
Thinking in terms of interfaces is an example of the kind of minimalism I'm talking about. Declaring that an object (or class) supports an interface ensures that it behaves properly in some context, and nothing more. This is what makes C++ multiple inheritance messy (or did, they may have fixed that in the twenty-five years since I've used C++).
On the flip side of that question, where's the legal compulsion to work if you don't think the pay is high enough?
Of course striking is fundamentally different than just deciding not to go to work; it's a collective action, one that attempts to establish a kind of monopoly leverage on employers.
Or you never learned what it was about.
There has never been immunity from legal consequences of speech in this country. Never. Libel, fraud, revealing state secrets, intimidation... even copyright infringement have been speech crimes since the very beginning. Nor has providing a forum or copyrighted material for speech you like ever been compulsory on private individuals.
While compulsory licensing is an issue, I'm not sure it applies here. What is the nature of the compulsion? You have to abide by the license or use different music, or no music at all.
This is a much lower burden on speech than having to comply with, say, social media TOS. If you don't comply with Facebook TOS you're excluded from an important forum for public discussion. If you don't comply with the bundled Windows license you can't use your computer (unless you can install Linux, which is trickier now with UEFI secure boot).
If you don't agree to a music license, you have to use different music. Even if *all* music providers stipulate you can't use music a certain way, it doesn't cut off access from anybody who wants to hear what you have to say.
Because it shows that the poster's conception of free speech is broken. There is no jurisdiction, anywhere, where you are immune from legal consequences for anything you say regardless of intent because it is *speech*.
It's actually not true that intimidation fits the legal definition of assault, at least in most places. It's its own crime. But even if it were technically rolled into "assault" it would not change the fact that it is also speech.
Intent is a part of every crime; without "mens rea" (guilty mind) there is no crime.
Suppose your neighbor comes from a country where fires in barrels carries a disturbing and threatening significance, but you don't know it. You burn a barrel of leaves on this lawn, but you have no mens rea as to the crime of intimidation; you have no idea. You're just guilty of trespass because that's all you intended to do, even though your act has the effect of terrorizing the victim.
Now suppose you burn a cross on his lawn, fully intending to scare him into moving away, however in his culture a burning cross carries no symbolic significance. You are guilty of threatening your neighbor because that was what you were attempting to do, even though the threat doesn't work; he's just mystified rather than intimidated.
How about threats of bodily injury? How does that fit into your "believe in free speech or don't" framework?
Intentionally. However it's very easy to do that unintentionally.
For example, suppose your state bars felons from various things like owning a gun and voting. It exchanges lists of convicted felons with another state, however the states don't agree on whether specific crimes are felonies or misdemeanors. Depending on how you ask for the data, you can end up with different results.
My conclusion from my study is that using ontology technology for inter-organizational standards was a really bad idea because it exported baggage from each organization that creates problems for the other organizations. On the other hand the technology had potential uses internally (e.g. purging sensitive information from datasets being shared).
Basically RDF is really potentially useful in a lot of situations where people use XML, but OWL is asking for trouble.
If you take the ethical and legal theories under which underpin intellectual property seriously, you can sell the right to use your IP with any kind of strings attached you want, subject to statutory constraints only. A "license" is just a kind of contract, and if the contract says you can only perform a song on a sousaphone on alternate Tuesdays, if you perform it on a harmonica you're a pirate.
By that logic "free speech" doesn't apply to printed matter or text.
The practical problem is that people don't understand the undesirable effect of propagating constraining logic between application domains.
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to endorse Torvalds' attitude here. But you encounter it, minus the armor of overwhelming fame, all the time when you work with multiple groups of stakeholders. As a system designer a lot of what you do when you develop system requirements is make localized concerns globally visible. But there are always people who don't see the needs of other users as important, and depending on how they're situated they can create a lot of grief.
People actually confuse "objective" and "subjective". I actually had a client once who even used those terms: we should focus on what's "objectively" important, by which he meant things that seemed obviously important to him. Things that were important to other stakeholders were "subjective" concerns. People do that a lot more than they realize, even if they don't use those terms. What's rare is having enough status to be an asshole about it.
Hate speech is speech that is calculated to instill fear in some group; specifically fear of exercising their civil rights.
The classic example is burning a cross. Compare burning a cross to burning a barrel of leaves over the line to your neighbor's property; that's just trespass. Burning a cross is about sending a message: it's not safe to live here.