His statement isn't a troll, though it is pithy. Remember also when S&P downgraded the US' credit rating. This administration loudly and proudly announced an IRS investigation into them.
Displease the political masters, and they sic the 60,000+ laws on you. Certainly they must be violating something -- historically that's the purpose of myriad laws, so you can't move without violating something, which gives them an excuse to hall you in when you get uppity.
Seriously, this is how corrupt nations operate. Nobody can move without violating laws. Because people like to move so they can make food to shove down their gullet, they have to violate these laws. This allows local officials to demand kickbacks to look the other way. The higher you get, the more kickbacks you take.
Wrapping it in democracy just means politicians have to play games with public justifications and cover stories. Here's the kicker -- the laws can be perfectly valid, and still they get in the way such that the officials get paid to get back out of the way. All right out in the freaking open and legal.
This problem has been known since at least the 1970s, and it was weather simulation that discovered it. It lead to the field of chaos theory.
With an early simulation, they ran their program and got a result. They saved their initial variables and then ran it the next day and got a completely different result.
Looking into it, they found out that when they saved their initial values, they only saved the first 5 digits or so of their numbers. It was the tiny bit at the end that made the results completely different.
This was terribly shocking. Everybody felt that tiny differences would melt away into some averaging process, and never be an influence. Instead, it multiplied up to dominate the entire result.
To give yourself a feel for what's going on, imagine knocking a billiard ball on a table that's miles wide. How accurate must your initial angle be to knock it into a pocket on the other side? Now imagine a normal table with balls bouncing around for half an hour. Each time a ball hits another, the angle deviation multiplies. In short order with two different (very minor differences) angles, some balls are completely missing other balls. There's your entire butterfly effect.
Now imagine the other famous realm of the butterfly effect -- "time travel". You go back and make the slightest deviation in one single particle, one single quantum of energy, and in short order atmospheric molecules are bouncing around differently, this multiplies up to different weather, people are having sex at different times, different eggs are being fertilized by different sperm, and in not very long an entirely different generation starts getting born. (I read once that even if you took a temperature, pressure, wind direction, humidity measurement every cubic foot, you could only predict the weather accurately to about a month. The tiniest molecular deviation would probably get you another few days on top of that if you were lucky.)
Even if the current people in these parallel worlds lived more or less the same, their kids would be completely different. That's why all these "parallel world" stories are such a joke. You would literally need a Q-like being tracking multiple worlds, forcing things to stay more or less along similar paths.
Here's the funnest part -- if quantum "wave collapse" is truly random, then even a god setting up identical initial conditions wouldn't produce identical results in parallel worlds. (Interestingly, the mechanism on the "other side" doing the "randomization" could be deterministic, but that would not save Einstein's concept of Reality vs. Locality. It was particles that were Real, not the meta-particles running the "simulation" of them.)
Thank you. That whole Russian dialog is wonderful. They act as if they're onto something, and Heywood responds appropriately, everybody going through motions while everybody knows it's really about something else, but what? The Russians wanna know badly.
Do they suspect something more than a disease outbreak? How is Heywood's response to be interpreted depending on which view the Russians hold?
Watching 2001 is like watching Citizen Kane -- Just looking for near infinite numbers of little film tricks here and there, cool things nobody did before, or executed with such skill.
Imagone someone "remaking" this film in the modern way -- there would be nothing there. They wouldn't have had the "hamster wheel". The airlock scene wouldn't be completely silent as it should be. The moon landing would be an idiotic fast thing. There would be no curve to the space station internally. They would sweat the wrong details.
Hell, just look at 2010 where they begrudgingly addressed this with the flipping pen en route to making it about 1/3 action movie.
I've heard the tip of the finger was because it didn't get scars. I've also heard because it had increased blood flow, and thus was more likely to have fresher blood, important for glucose measurements.
If the latter, I would have to suggest malpractice. When your fingertips are cold, there ain't jack squat blood flowing through there. I also find it hard to believe that there was some study showing fingertip blood (especially cold fingers) was somehow superior to back of the forearm, when measured against a deeper proper draw.
Yes, but at the end of the day, it's all about statistics.
The day will come, for both cars and surgery, when machines will do it more safely than humans. People will then begin to ask if it's ethical to even have humans do these things anymore.
I can't imagine full banning in either case, but certainly after a generation who's grown up with it goes by, nobody will think twice about it. Passenger jets can (and possibly should) do the whole thing by robot, and have been able to for at least 20 years.
A human-caused accident, well people fret and "let's improve it". But let a machine make a much rarer accident, people scream and politicians capitalize on it, making the world more, not less, dangerous.
They are adhering to the law, as they control the law. Nobody will go to jail for waterboarding. Nobody will go to jail for easy, warrantless wiretaps and full-blown recording of Internet and other communications.
Even if a rogue agent who did this was discovered and prosecuted, nobody will go to jail for creating such an easy-to-abuse system in the first place.
When a government seeks "emergency powers", with "trust us" as the head pat to the population, statistically it almost never works out. That's the lesson going back to ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that nobody ever learns.
Politicians will abuse it. If we get out of this, consider ourselves lucky as it will be a rare event historically.
"So you believe the man who nominated you should resign in disgrace or be impeached, and prosecuted? You believe the previous president should also be prosecuted?"
Many of these other countries are high in local corruption. Sanctions means less money they can skim off the top. They aren't gonna do it just so somebody in the US or Europe can go, "Hell yes!"
The real shock isn't that they can reprogram the radio. It's that they can use this over CAN to get to the engine controller instead of requiring a direct connect to reflash these things with high safety classification.
Well, like shocking a kid with a cattle prod, who keeps slapping himself, it works. It's just considered unethical. At least they poked fun at both sides in A Clockwork Orange, unlike Cukoo's Nest.
To programmers there: Snowden claimed he could listen to calls with no warrant and no alarms going off. How is this possible? Shouldn't you build in logging with MD5 calculation, both being sent off to multiple storage sites?
Shouldn't you have a similar system integrity check, also logged, against a known, uncorrupted file system, to detect alteration of executables?
To honest agents: What if the guy next to you was like G. Gordon Liddy, and when nobody was looking, listened on on conversations of political people? How would you know? What if he was doing it for "the other side?".
Is there any external mathematical difference between "we need to spy on terrorists" and "we are going to spy on political opponents"? How could we tell?
- "Trust us" is used in both situations. - "We have processes in place" is claimed in both cases. - Alarms don't go off if an agent listens in on a call without a warrant. See first two points?
I suppose we should rely on historical experience of how governments operate. Oh oh.
Slashdot Mirror
His statement isn't a troll, though it is pithy. Remember also when S&P downgraded the US' credit rating. This administration loudly and proudly announced an IRS investigation into them.
Displease the political masters, and they sic the 60,000+ laws on you. Certainly they must be violating something -- historically that's the purpose of myriad laws, so you can't move without violating something, which gives them an excuse to hall you in when you get uppity.
Seriously, this is how corrupt nations operate. Nobody can move without violating laws. Because people like to move so they can make food to shove down their gullet, they have to violate these laws. This allows local officials to demand kickbacks to look the other way. The higher you get, the more kickbacks you take.
Wrapping it in democracy just means politicians have to play games with public justifications and cover stories. Here's the kicker -- the laws can be perfectly valid, and still they get in the way such that the officials get paid to get back out of the way. All right out in the freaking open and legal.
This problem has been known since at least the 1970s, and it was weather simulation that discovered it. It lead to the field of chaos theory.
With an early simulation, they ran their program and got a result. They saved their initial variables and then ran it the next day and got a completely different result.
Looking into it, they found out that when they saved their initial values, they only saved the first 5 digits or so of their numbers. It was the tiny bit at the end that made the results completely different.
This was terribly shocking. Everybody felt that tiny differences would melt away into some averaging process, and never be an influence. Instead, it multiplied up to dominate the entire result.
To give yourself a feel for what's going on, imagine knocking a billiard ball on a table that's miles wide. How accurate must your initial angle be to knock it into a pocket on the other side? Now imagine a normal table with balls bouncing around for half an hour. Each time a ball hits another, the angle deviation multiplies. In short order with two different (very minor differences) angles, some balls are completely missing other balls. There's your entire butterfly effect.
Now imagine the other famous realm of the butterfly effect -- "time travel". You go back and make the slightest deviation in one single particle, one single quantum of energy, and in short order atmospheric molecules are bouncing around differently, this multiplies up to different weather, people are having sex at different times, different eggs are being fertilized by different sperm, and in not very long an entirely different generation starts getting born. (I read once that even if you took a temperature, pressure, wind direction, humidity measurement every cubic foot, you could only predict the weather accurately to about a month. The tiniest molecular deviation would probably get you another few days on top of that if you were lucky.)
Even if the current people in these parallel worlds lived more or less the same, their kids would be completely different. That's why all these "parallel world" stories are such a joke. You would literally need a Q-like being tracking multiple worlds, forcing things to stay more or less along similar paths.
Here's the funnest part -- if quantum "wave collapse" is truly random, then even a god setting up identical initial conditions wouldn't produce identical results in parallel worlds. (Interestingly, the mechanism on the "other side" doing the "randomization" could be deterministic, but that would not save Einstein's concept of Reality vs. Locality. It was particles that were Real, not the meta-particles running the "simulation" of them.)
Thank you. That whole Russian dialog is wonderful. They act as if they're onto something, and Heywood responds appropriately, everybody going through motions while everybody knows it's really about something else, but what? The Russians wanna know badly.
Do they suspect something more than a disease outbreak? How is Heywood's response to be interpreted depending on which view the Russians hold?
Watching 2001 is like watching Citizen Kane -- Just looking for near infinite numbers of little film tricks here and there, cool things nobody did before, or executed with such skill.
Imagone someone "remaking" this film in the modern way -- there would be nothing there. They wouldn't have had the "hamster wheel". The airlock scene wouldn't be completely silent as it should be. The moon landing would be an idiotic fast thing. There would be no curve to the space station internally. They would sweat the wrong details.
Hell, just look at 2010 where they begrudgingly addressed this with the flipping pen en route to making it about 1/3 action movie.
"We agreed we wouldn't have a standing army, not a flying robot one. My god, look at our movies!"
You've obviously never done this with cold fingertips. You have to squeeze like a mofo to get a micro-C3PO's worth.
I think there's too much argumentative baggage about this prick site*.
* Insert double entendre reference here.
I've heard the tip of the finger was because it didn't get scars. I've also heard because it had increased blood flow, and thus was more likely to have fresher blood, important for glucose measurements.
If the latter, I would have to suggest malpractice. When your fingertips are cold, there ain't jack squat blood flowing through there. I also find it hard to believe that there was some study showing fingertip blood (especially cold fingers) was somehow superior to back of the forearm, when measured against a deeper proper draw.
I'd like to get stuck by a nurse.
> Would You Let a Robot Stick You
Well, hell. I'm adventurous. Yes. Yes I would!
> ...With A Needle
Oh, right. Ummmm, ya, sure. What the hell.
Yes, but at the end of the day, it's all about statistics.
The day will come, for both cars and surgery, when machines will do it more safely than humans. People will then begin to ask if it's ethical to even have humans do these things anymore.
I can't imagine full banning in either case, but certainly after a generation who's grown up with it goes by, nobody will think twice about it. Passenger jets can (and possibly should) do the whole thing by robot, and have been able to for at least 20 years.
A human-caused accident, well people fret and "let's improve it". But let a machine make a much rarer accident, people scream and politicians capitalize on it, making the world more, not less, dangerous.
I think you're over-estimating Gore. We'd have still had 9/11 almost certainly, and also the Afghan war, but not Iraq.
They are adhering to the law, as they control the law. Nobody will go to jail for waterboarding. Nobody will go to jail for easy, warrantless wiretaps and full-blown recording of Internet and other communications.
Even if a rogue agent who did this was discovered and prosecuted, nobody will go to jail for creating such an easy-to-abuse system in the first place.
When a government seeks "emergency powers", with "trust us" as the head pat to the population, statistically it almost never works out. That's the lesson going back to ancient Rome and Greece and beyond that nobody ever learns.
Politicians will abuse it. If we get out of this, consider ourselves lucky as it will be a rare event historically.
"So you believe the man who nominated you should resign in disgrace or be impeached, and prosecuted? You believe the previous president should also be prosecuted?"
Well that didn't paste right. Try this.
> HOWTO debate censorship.
tl;dr Direct elected politicians to here.
"Drug trip" doesn't appear anywhere. Fail.
Will no one rid us of this turbulent tyrrany aborning?
Is their raw data available? I'd like a crack at it with my desktop computer.
Many of these other countries are high in local corruption. Sanctions means less money they can skim off the top. They aren't gonna do it just so somebody in the US or Europe can go, "Hell yes!"
The real shock isn't that they can reprogram the radio. It's that they can use this over CAN to get to the engine controller instead of requiring a direct connect to reflash these things with high safety classification.
I want new feet. I want a new right arm. I want a new penis. I want new teeth.
Not necessarily in that order.
From TFA:
> Even if you are not in the EU all countries have agreed
> in merchant cases to accept the decision of the
> wedish handelskammer in Stockholm.
"Wedish handelskammer" would make a good name for a dwarf character.
Well, this knowledge is too late to help Dexter now. He's approaching the endgame with his life bursting out of control.
Well, like shocking a kid with a cattle prod, who keeps slapping himself, it works. It's just considered unethical. At least they poked fun at both sides in A Clockwork Orange, unlike Cukoo's Nest.
To programmers there: Snowden claimed he could listen to calls with no warrant and no alarms going off. How is this possible? Shouldn't you build in logging with MD5 calculation, both being sent off to multiple storage sites?
Shouldn't you have a similar system integrity check, also logged, against a known, uncorrupted file system, to detect alteration of executables?
To honest agents: What if the guy next to you was like G. Gordon Liddy, and when nobody was looking, listened on on conversations of political people? How would you know? What if he was doing it for "the other side?".
Is there any external mathematical difference between "we need to spy on terrorists" and "we are going to spy on political opponents"? How could we tell?
- "Trust us" is used in both situations.
- "We have processes in place" is claimed in both cases.
- Alarms don't go off if an agent listens in on a call without a warrant. See first two points?
I suppose we should rely on historical experience of how governments operate. Oh oh.
Nah they should just leave them up if that's the case.
Oops, I forgot about union grievances since installing signs is union work. Ok, take them down (also union work) then put them back up.
Then, ummm, everybody is happy.
I wonder if the armies watching the cameras in 1984 were unionized.