She draws a comparison with New Zealand. I live in New Zealand. She probably came here as a tourist and had fun and went camping and thought everyone lives that way. They don't. It's true that we're less work-obsessed than the USA, but then most developed countries are less work-obsessed than the USA, so that isn't saying much. While the wealthier in New Zealand do work less, the poorer classes work their asses off to survive just like everywhere else.
It's not a law of nature that a Breitling is expensive. All of what you're saying boils down to human psychology. The point of Star Trek economics is NOT that everybody can have a yacht, it's that no one wants a yacht anymore. Essentially, everyone (including ordinary civilians) live in a similar way as you do on a starship; the only material possessions are necessities plus maybe a few sentimental items of personal value. This is apparent if you look at civilian clothing on the show: People from the federation wear clothes that are incredibly bland: http://i184.photobucket.com/al... whereas people from other places (especially the Ferengi, for example) often wear extravagant clothes and jewellery. Being obsessed with material wealth is frowned upon even if you're a civilian, which is why for instance Vash is chided for her shady trade in ancient artifacts.
(Of course, being a TV show, I'm aware that there are a lot of examples contradictory to this general idea)
In fact there's nothing to suggest that the Federation has overcome material/energetic scarcity. Far from it. In the Borg war and the Dominion war they keep saying how they don't have enough ships or enough men, so there's obviously some kind of internal economics going on where net demand outstrips net supply, just like our world. So the economics of the show isn't really about overcoming scarcity, it's about something far deeper and probably far harder to achieve: convincing everyone to live in the same frugal and spartan way. That's why star trek economics will never probably work: There will always be greedy and wealth-obsessed people.
> Their torpedoes seem like they're pretty nasty. Okay... why are they so under powered?
Because it's entertainment. If a 24th century photon torpedo had even as much power as a 20th century nuke, then you could obliterate even the largest ships with a single hit, no matter how strong their 'shields' were. But that would be decidedly harder to write epic space battles around (or maybe not, depending on your level of creativitiy).
No, that's not what I assert. It's ironic that you use passive-aggressive insults like "a manner you understand" yet you aren't even capable of understanding simple English.
I said, and I repeat, that the Turing test has done nothing to improve AI and machine learning research. And I'm specifically talking about aiming for success in the test. I'll repeat it again for good measure: Aiming for success in the Turing test has done nothing to improve AI and machine learning research. If you knew even the tiniest bit about machine learning and AI you wouldn't be saying this.
I thought you'd do some research but apparently not. Oh well, I'm feeling good this morning so I'll help you out.
Part of the deal is the monitoring of the supply chain. Yes, even the mines and DEFINITELY the centrifuges. ALL the centrifuges. Monitoring means cameras filming 24/7, as well as occasional in-person inspectors, activity logs, and many other forms of inspection and verification.
The 'military facilities' that Iran refuses access to are sites where things like training, conventional weapons testing, and maintenance/assembly are carried out. They are not, as far as we know, part of their nuclear operations. Could Iran use those places for nuclear operations? Certainly. There's not much point in doing so, though.
> I wonder if a computer would eventually be a better writer/artist than what we have now.
In all likelihood they probably are, if we're talking about the crap that comes out of major studios. Have you ever seen what goes in when they're 'writing' shows and movies? It's basically like a lab or industrial operation.
> The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.
This is ridiculous. There is no indication that the 'Turing test' has done ANYTHING to improve AI and machine learning research so far. If you knew even the tiniest bit about machine learning and AI you wouldn't be saying this.
As it so happens, we have an OS that's exactly like that. All it does it manage and load applications. Not only is the web browser completely outside the OS, the UI is largely outside of the OS as well. Of course, you need drivers and filesystems too, otherwise nothing works, but other than that it's pretty minimal. It's called Linux.
> Unfortunately, everyone is reading a bunch of journalists who lack even the slightest ability to parse nuance.
Precisely.
> Iran is trying to build a nuclear breakout capability.
Pretty much, but over the years their focus has shifted slightly. They used to think that having breakout capability (the ability to build a bomb within a few weeks) was the prime goal. Nowadays I think they've realized just the threat of having breakout capability itself is a useful strategic thing to have. They now want to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip and a way to exert influence, especially against the other powers in the region. So, if Saudi Arabia or Israel start doing stuff Iran doesn't like, they can spin up the centrifuges and get everybody's attention.
At this moment the centrifuges themselves hold far more strategic value for them than any enriched Uranium coming out of them. They might even just run the centrifuges with inert gas. Actually, that's what they are planning to do with a lot of them - the cover story is that they are doing this for 'peaceful research into centrifuge technology'.
I care zero what crap the Iranian propaganda machine spews out, just as I care zero what propaganda the far-right hardliners in the US spew out. But yeah, I guess my skepticisism of the far-right's claim that Iran is developing nukes is equivalent to the blind acceptance of the far-right's claim that Iraq was developing WMDs.
> they know exactly what they are doing and the "who me? this is just for energy" is part of the game.
Maybe. We do need to try to prevent any and all paths towards them building a nuclear weapon. Countries have indeed used nuclear energy programs as covers for nuclear weapons programs in the past. See: Israel.
But I get tired of this unsubstantiated Netanyahu argument that they are making a bomb right now. Do you have any evidence that they are building a bomb? No. You have zip. Am I supposed to take the argument that "OMG THEY ARE MAKING NUKES CUZ THEY ARE BAD GUYS!!!!111" seriously?
Back in 2003 it was 'obvious' that Saddam was developing a nuke. He must have been! He was a bad dictator and he even had the bad dictator hat and moustache! If we didn't attack immediately he would turn the entire USA into nuclear glass!
> while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...
Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. It has a right to nuclear energy. The challenge of non-proliferation has always been finding a way to let a country have one but not the other. It's a tricky and subtle problem, but it's not like we just realized this yesterday. There is a huge international framework in place for precisely this purpose.
> It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...
I never said "innocent until proven guilty." I'm saying we don't know yet. Sure, we can assume that they are building a nuke, but unfounded assumptions are dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. The most rational course of action is to close off all paths to a nuke, while letting them keep nuclear energy so they don't have an excuse to just take their entire program underground. That's why we have nuclear negotiations.
About your boring rhetoric on Obama, I'm not American so I don't care, really. Take your rants somewhere else.
Aqa Mohammad Khan (founder of the Qajar dynasty) famously said, "If you want to govern Iran the only way is to make sure the people are illiterate and hungry."
If you're going to make the claim that current Iranian leaders are the same as Hitler, you're going to have to offer an argument with a bit more substance than "They're both bad guys, they must be the same!"
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation.
And they don't need to, anyway. Just monitor their supply chain of nuclear materials. That's what the current deal does.
If you think about it, a military base is a stupid place to build a bomb anyway. There are a million other places that are less obvious and easier to hide. Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.
It is true. And I not only think they will try to skirt the deal, I 100% trust that they will attempt something devious. And that's why there are verification measures in place in addition to the implicit understanding that the deal will be renewed after it expires. The deal all but ensures Iran will not have a nuke. Any other pathway (including bombardment) would lead to Iran probably having a nuke. You really think you can do better than professional scientists, diplomats, and disarmament experts?
> Remember, the Koran promotes lying to infidels to gain their trust before back-stabbing them.
This has nothing to do with religion. Every country will turn its back on a deal if it thinks it can benefit from doing so. Again, this changes nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
She draws a comparison with New Zealand. I live in New Zealand. She probably came here as a tourist and had fun and went camping and thought everyone lives that way. They don't. It's true that we're less work-obsessed than the USA, but then most developed countries are less work-obsessed than the USA, so that isn't saying much. While the wealthier in New Zealand do work less, the poorer classes work their asses off to survive just like everywhere else.
It's not a law of nature that a Breitling is expensive. All of what you're saying boils down to human psychology. The point of Star Trek economics is NOT that everybody can have a yacht, it's that no one wants a yacht anymore. Essentially, everyone (including ordinary civilians) live in a similar way as you do on a starship; the only material possessions are necessities plus maybe a few sentimental items of personal value. This is apparent if you look at civilian clothing on the show: People from the federation wear clothes that are incredibly bland: http://i184.photobucket.com/al... whereas people from other places (especially the Ferengi, for example) often wear extravagant clothes and jewellery. Being obsessed with material wealth is frowned upon even if you're a civilian, which is why for instance Vash is chided for her shady trade in ancient artifacts.
(Of course, being a TV show, I'm aware that there are a lot of examples contradictory to this general idea)
In fact there's nothing to suggest that the Federation has overcome material/energetic scarcity. Far from it. In the Borg war and the Dominion war they keep saying how they don't have enough ships or enough men, so there's obviously some kind of internal economics going on where net demand outstrips net supply, just like our world. So the economics of the show isn't really about overcoming scarcity, it's about something far deeper and probably far harder to achieve: convincing everyone to live in the same frugal and spartan way. That's why star trek economics will never probably work: There will always be greedy and wealth-obsessed people.
> Their torpedoes seem like they're pretty nasty. Okay... why are they so under powered?
Because it's entertainment. If a 24th century photon torpedo had even as much power as a 20th century nuke, then you could obliterate even the largest ships with a single hit, no matter how strong their 'shields' were. But that would be decidedly harder to write epic space battles around (or maybe not, depending on your level of creativitiy).
No, that's not what I assert. It's ironic that you use passive-aggressive insults like "a manner you understand" yet you aren't even capable of understanding simple English.
I said, and I repeat, that the Turing test has done nothing to improve AI and machine learning research. And I'm specifically talking about aiming for success in the test. I'll repeat it again for good measure: Aiming for success in the Turing test has done nothing to improve AI and machine learning research. If you knew even the tiniest bit about machine learning and AI you wouldn't be saying this.
Don't play dumb with me. I'm talking about aiming for success in the test, not simply losing in the test.
Please, don't dig yourself deeper.
I thought you'd do some research but apparently not. Oh well, I'm feeling good this morning so I'll help you out.
Part of the deal is the monitoring of the supply chain. Yes, even the mines and DEFINITELY the centrifuges. ALL the centrifuges. Monitoring means cameras filming 24/7, as well as occasional in-person inspectors, activity logs, and many other forms of inspection and verification.
The 'military facilities' that Iran refuses access to are sites where things like training, conventional weapons testing, and maintenance/assembly are carried out. They are not, as far as we know, part of their nuclear operations. Could Iran use those places for nuclear operations? Certainly. There's not much point in doing so, though.
> I wonder if a computer would eventually be a better writer/artist than what we have now.
In all likelihood they probably are, if we're talking about the crap that comes out of major studios. Have you ever seen what goes in when they're 'writing' shows and movies? It's basically like a lab or industrial operation.
> The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.
This is ridiculous. There is no indication that the 'Turing test' has done ANYTHING to improve AI and machine learning research so far. If you knew even the tiniest bit about machine learning and AI you wouldn't be saying this.
As it so happens, we have an OS that's exactly like that. All it does it manage and load applications. Not only is the web browser completely outside the OS, the UI is largely outside of the OS as well. Of course, you need drivers and filesystems too, otherwise nothing works, but other than that it's pretty minimal. It's called Linux.
> Unfortunately, everyone is reading a bunch of journalists who lack even the slightest ability to parse nuance.
Precisely.
> Iran is trying to build a nuclear breakout capability.
Pretty much, but over the years their focus has shifted slightly. They used to think that having breakout capability (the ability to build a bomb within a few weeks) was the prime goal. Nowadays I think they've realized just the threat of having breakout capability itself is a useful strategic thing to have. They now want to use the nuclear program as a bargaining chip and a way to exert influence, especially against the other powers in the region. So, if Saudi Arabia or Israel start doing stuff Iran doesn't like, they can spin up the centrifuges and get everybody's attention.
At this moment the centrifuges themselves hold far more strategic value for them than any enriched Uranium coming out of them. They might even just run the centrifuges with inert gas. Actually, that's what they are planning to do with a lot of them - the cover story is that they are doing this for 'peaceful research into centrifuge technology'.
It's like you're saying Elvis is alive then asking me to prove you wrong.
You can prove yourself wrong just by doing a little bit of googling and research on weapons proliferation and the current nuclear deal.
I'll respond to valid points, but it's not my responsibility to give you a general education.
I care zero what crap the Iranian propaganda machine spews out, just as I care zero what propaganda the far-right hardliners in the US spew out. But yeah, I guess my skepticisism of the far-right's claim that Iran is developing nukes is equivalent to the blind acceptance of the far-right's claim that Iraq was developing WMDs.
Don't do drugs, kids.
Do they have internet in the looney bin now?
> they know exactly what they are doing and the "who me? this is just for energy" is part of the game.
Maybe. We do need to try to prevent any and all paths towards them building a nuclear weapon. Countries have indeed used nuclear energy programs as covers for nuclear weapons programs in the past. See: Israel.
But I get tired of this unsubstantiated Netanyahu argument that they are making a bomb right now. Do you have any evidence that they are building a bomb? No. You have zip. Am I supposed to take the argument that "OMG THEY ARE MAKING NUKES CUZ THEY ARE BAD GUYS!!!!111" seriously?
Back in 2003 it was 'obvious' that Saddam was developing a nuke. He must have been! He was a bad dictator and he even had the bad dictator hat and moustache! If we didn't attack immediately he would turn the entire USA into nuclear glass!
> To some English-language forum hosted in the US and aimed, primarily, at American audiences? Like Slashdot?
I didn't know "news for nerds" meant it's aimed primarily at American audiences. Unless you think all nerds are American.
YOU made the assertion that they're trying to build a nuke. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Are you trolling me or what?
> You did. By demanding: "Prove it"...
It's not my fault you lack reading comprehension. I recommend finishing grade school.
> What consequences would there be to assuming, they are building a nuclear weapon?
War.
> Eliminating all paths to nuclear weapons is funny too. They have the centrifuges and Uranium mines, how do you eliminate their ability to use them?
With this sentence you have revealed your 100% complete ignorance on the subject.
> while at the same time arguing for their right to have nuclear weapons...
Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. It has a right to nuclear energy. The challenge of non-proliferation has always been finding a way to let a country have one but not the other. It's a tricky and subtle problem, but it's not like we just realized this yesterday. There is a huge international framework in place for precisely this purpose.
> It is admirable, that you wish to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" principle even to foreign regimes, but it is also naïve. Even in the legal system and offender on probation has to continuously prove innocence...
I never said "innocent until proven guilty." I'm saying we don't know yet. Sure, we can assume that they are building a nuke, but unfounded assumptions are dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. The most rational course of action is to close off all paths to a nuke, while letting them keep nuclear energy so they don't have an excuse to just take their entire program underground. That's why we have nuclear negotiations.
About your boring rhetoric on Obama, I'm not American so I don't care, really. Take your rants somewhere else.
> if you don't think iran is building a nuclear weapon you have reached a level of naive idiocy beyond contempt
Say that to Mossad.
> i don't care if you think it is ok for them to build one, or not ok. it doesn't matter if you think they deserve a nuclear weapon or not
I don't think it's ok for them to build one, you lunatic.
Aqa Mohammad Khan (founder of the Qajar dynasty) famously said, "If you want to govern Iran the only way is to make sure the people are illiterate and hungry."
Wrong... about what? I don't even know what I'm supposed to be refuting.
I never said Persia didn't attack anybody. They attacked and killed loads of people during their long history.
I'm just saying it's preposterous to think they would risk everything just to kill some infidels. And it is. Every informed person agrees on this.
If you're going to make the claim that current Iranian leaders are the same as Hitler, you're going to have to offer an argument with a bit more substance than "They're both bad guys, they must be the same!"
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation.
And they don't need to, anyway. Just monitor their supply chain of nuclear materials. That's what the current deal does.
If you think about it, a military base is a stupid place to build a bomb anyway. There are a million other places that are less obvious and easier to hide. Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.
Christians AND jews.
Anyway, Iran doesn't scare me. What scares me are the warmongering far-right lunatics who think it's a good idea to bomb Iran.
It is true. And I not only think they will try to skirt the deal, I 100% trust that they will attempt something devious. And that's why there are verification measures in place in addition to the implicit understanding that the deal will be renewed after it expires. The deal all but ensures Iran will not have a nuke. Any other pathway (including bombardment) would lead to Iran probably having a nuke. You really think you can do better than professional scientists, diplomats, and disarmament experts?
> Remember, the Koran promotes lying to infidels to gain their trust before back-stabbing them.
This has nothing to do with religion. Every country will turn its back on a deal if it thinks it can benefit from doing so. Again, this changes nothing.