Again, I have to wonder about the moderation as "insightful". At least you [MrLogic17] posed your comment in the form of a question.
The obvious answer, though it doesn't appear in any of the visible replies (and I basically don't read ACs) is that you don't have to keep all of it clear, but only the parts that are actually in use under the current wind conditions, as well as selected taxiways.
This part is more speculative, but I think it would actually be easier to keep the "active" runways clear since the wind would always be blowing directly down the runway. From a mathematical perspective, the "entry point" of fresh snow would only be at one small point at the end of each active runway.
As regards the last part of your comment, pretty sure you've never flown a plane. I was a lousy pilot, but I'm pretty sure the wording refers to two landing and two taking off, but they aren't counting one of the taking off planes because it is waiting for the turbulence to settle down. Another possibility is that one side is being used for landings and they are counting the takeoff as one plane because that takes roughly twice as long per plane.
...they wouldn't have to fight against crosswinds. And three planes would be able to take off or land at the same time...
If three are landing at the same time, I'd say that at least one is fighting cross-winds.
Rather than blaming the author, I'd rather say that whoever moderated that comment as insightful doesn't read too well. As regards the author, it's merely obvious that he or she has no experience actually flying planes.
Oh well. Moot insofar as the article is on the edge of Slashdot death (at the bottom of the page). The largest disappointment is the lack of funny comments on such a rich target.
Reviewing my comment, I see that I mentioned Windows 2000, and I believe it included the NT kernel. If not, then perhaps I should have extended to XP?
However, in terms of required OS-level functionality, I think that most of the later versions of Windows can only be described as bloatware. If the focus had been on optimizing and improving and properly securing a smaller OS as the hardware improved, I think we would be living in a quite different world. For two things, the OS itself would be really fast and much more secure.
There was a time when I could figure out what processes were actually running on my computers and which ones I actually needed. Now the Task Manager shows me a vast list of stuff, most of which I'm not using, but various parts of it are tied together in complicated ways, while EVERY part might contain severe vulnerabilities.
Actually, I'm certain that there are still plenty of severe vulnerabilities. At this point I think it's one of the few things I'm certain about regarding the latest and so-called greatest versions of anything from Microsoft.
As regards the original topic of Windows 10 upgrades, the only reason I upgraded to Windows 10 was because Microsoft was holding the gun of unsecured Windows 7 at my head. Ditto XP, except that Microsoft didn't give me an upgrade path and two of those machines are now Linux boxen. (One of those machines even runs an ancient app that is still important to me, at least in terms of avoiding a painful rewrite and port.)
Okay, my apologies, but I was having trouble framing the context of your prior comment. It sounded like you were taking one of their absolute positions based on their confusion about what freedom means.
Not that I'm a linguist, but I suspect that a lot of the problem involves ambiguities in the English language around the many senses of "free". Again, not that I'm fluent, but insofar as I understand Japanese the way they use separate words for the various senses of "free" makes a lot of sense to me. (Going beyond that, I'm beginning to speculate on how the confusing modal verbs of English are related to similar confusions created by the modal confusions in Japanese. Perhaps everyone is trying to be as "proper" in a normative sense as their respective languages will permit?)
Well, his strong claim may have been incorrect in that sense, but I'm pretty sure that your claim is also incorrect. The trick is that they have to make some argument that the public interest is served by requiring the private businesses to respect people's Constitutional rights. Separate but equal? Remember? We went through all of this back in the '50s and '60s, so why are we still squabbling about it?
Perhaps more significantly, the government can pass laws or impose regulations that have restrictive effects on certain kinds of speech. I don't care how private you think your entity is, if you collect and distribute such speech as child pornography, you're going to get the heck regulated out of you. With my hearty endorsement, much as I approve of freedom of speech (which is NOT the same as freedom, though there are important relationships).
I'm afraid I suspect you [4145623] of being another libertarian confused about what freedom actually means. The presence of real-world constraints does not eliminate freedom, but rather they are part of the "meaningful" part of my sig equation.
I think I agree with you, but those videos are mostly labors of love and not driven by the advertising concerns that are the focus of the original article or the broken and even criminal economic models that are my main focus. There are some other gems on YouTube, but I think few of them are related to the google's greed, which is the deeper source of my increasing dislike of the google.
What if you had the free choice to contribute to a fund to keep the older software upgraded against security vulnerabilities? Would you prefer that to letting companies like Microsoft decide when the new version supports their marketing plans and the old versions will no longer be supported?
Then again, if I had my druthers, I might still be running Windows 95 or Windows 2000. My choice between those two would probably be based on the size of the relevant support projects...
Windows 3.1 is a tad too retrograde for me, but I can't see a lot of crucial OS-level improvements since 95 came out. Or at least almost nothing that I would require to be a part of the OS. I'm convinced that Microsoft's trade-off of unneeded features for unneeded complexity and unneeded security vulnerabilities has been negative for a long time.
I think I'm glad that you got the insightful mod, but at the same time I think you could have gone much deeper with it.
The deep part that bothers me most is how advertising is tied to corporations that WANT docile, obedient, and even STUPID consumers who will obey the ads. Of course the risk of destroying public education was that there is no bottom limit to the resulting stupidity. Maybe you could even wind up with an insane clown president? Naw, That could never happen.
I do have to say a bit about why I don't use ad blockers. I feel like that is a violation of the implicit (and sometimes even explicit) agreement between me and the people who are incurring real costs to make the content available. I think there has to be some kind of business model there, and if I participate on the basis of being exposed to ads, then I shouldn't play technical games with the details.
Having said that, I confess that I am allergic to ads. If I can remember ANY ad for a product, then I count that as a reason to buy something else. Seems to be kind of self-defeating to make me watch a company's ads, and I doubt that company would be willing to pay to show me their competitors' ads. I suppose the obvious "technical solution" from the perspective of the advertising agency with the perfect weapon would be to detect the polarity of the viewers of the ads, tailoring each ad to each sucker, and in cases such as mine, that tailoring would be to advertise the main competitor in the most annoying way.
Solution time? Let me CHOOSE THE ADS that I am interested in seeing BEFORE wasting my time by shoving them in my face.
First example: They could give me several links to pick from to determine which advertiser's ads I see. Interesting wrinkle would be to tweak the timing of the ads to find out how the customers feel about the advertised products: "Do you want to watch this video with two minutes of beer ads or with a one-minute ad for sanitary napkins?" If people keep selecting product A, then the system would keep increasing the ads for A seeking equilibrium.
Second example: Auction my time for watching ads. The auctioneer would have a strong incentive to protect my privacy to protect future auctions, and I would have a strong incentive to give the auctioneer some real data about what I actually want to buy. The companies bidding for my time would have a strong incentive to reach truly qualified and interested customers.
Can you believe that I can actually fantasize about applying such solutions to the cesspool that is YouTube? I must be getting even more delusional.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
The basis of the "insightful" moderation is eluding me. Par for today's Slashdot, though I remain more discouraged by the lack of actually "funny" comments. Or perhaps I should say dismayed by both?
Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.
These is some legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.
The rest of the wannabe good content is pirated stuff. Much of that is reduced below good by the insertion of lots of intrusive ads, obviously for cases where the pirate is profiting that way, but YouTube has an obvious vested interest in supporting that sort of thing as long as some sucker is paying for the ads. Then there is a HUGE amount of fake piracy that is just intended to lure you to an installer where your computer will get pwned. Offensive enough, but downright EVIL when it is targeting innocent children, and LOTS of it has been doing exactly that for many years.
I used to waste some time trying to fight against it, but I eventually realized the google is too EVIL to care now, as long as they are making money off it. The motto about "Don't be evil" is long dead in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." However there is a real threat to the google's new mission statement. They had to revise it when they realized there was too much information out there and that "useful" was a complicated notion. The new mission of the google is to make the advertisers' information available and the utility function is the corporations' profits. Humans are only incidentally involved.
But seriously folks, I mostly enjoyed my work and didn't even want to retire when the big three-letter-company was done with me. Looking at the developing situation, now I think I got out just in time.
So now we have a level of people who spend all their time watching other people working (or faking it), but the obvious new job opportunity is to get a job watching the guys who are watching the other guys.
It's the ultimate in job security, because they'll always need to hire someone at the next level up!
Unbounded recursion? Resources exhausted? Whatever do you mean?
Whoever moderated your comment as "insightful" obviously did it based on agreeing with you, not on the basis of your fake evidence. In contrast to those "insightful" moderators, you got me to follow your link and it does NOT support your claims.
Actually, the so-called Republicans have institutionalized party discipline that would make Lenin blush. His Bolsheviks were supposed to have been the experts, but now they look like amateurs.
Not that I can really defend the Democratic Party. Insofar as I have supported them, it has always been a kind of allergic reaction to the gawdawful candidates the GOP has run, especially at the top of the ticket.
In my youth, I actually did research on the top races and almost always concluded the Democratic candidate was better (or at least less bad), while on the down-ticket races I tended to vote for whoever seemed less represented, such as women or candidates with minority-sounding names. When I got older, I discovered that the down-ticket races were more important than I had realized, but by that time the down-ticket winners had gerrymandered my vote to meaninglessness. They almost managed to disenfranchise me completely last time, though it didn't make any difference (of course).
The demographics actually prove the GOP is no more, notwithstanding their successful conversion therapy of the old Dixiecrat racists into Reagan Republicans. So they've adopted a new strategy: If you can't beat 'em, break the game.
Hmm... Humor-rich target, but this is the first funny-moderated comment I've found. (I scan from the back...) Unfortunately, it should be "insightful", even though you didn't explicitly mention group 4 is much larger than group 2. It is possible that your company has more employees in group 2 than group 4, but the joke depends on it being the other way... It's the old false positive joke for medical diagnosis.
Oh well. Moot for me, since I never get a mod point to give. Then again, I'd probably prefer not participating in the travesty unless there were some signs the moderation system itself was being improved...
Hmm... I'm largely inclined to agree, but the European situation is complicated. I think my largest caveats are that many of the European countries are moving strongly towards renewable energy and they also want to reduce their dependence upon Russia.
Basically your reply convinces me that you've never made a serious effort to read one of these EULAs.
By the way, I think I should clarify that I don't think Microsoft created the strategy. However I do think they've perfected it, and now it's almost SOP in large companies. The true solution of breaking the excessively large companies into smaller ones seems unlikely to be adopted.
We're getting too far from Mars... Therefore I think that all I want to say is that I doubt the Saudis will use their sovereign fund is such wise and benevolent ways. I think the ruling family will just take the money and run, perhaps to Denmark where I think their sovereign wealth fund will be invested well. The extractionists are already committed to releasing way too much carbon and the end game doesn't matter if you are only thinking about dying with the most toys.
I'm certainly not denying that Pence is terrible, but I believe he is terrible within normal bounds of awfulness. I even agree that his goals are egregious, but I think he is basically not that competent. In comparison, I think Trump is much less competent, but his damage potential is much higher because he can be played so easily. I'm not so much in favor of removing the Donald as in dis-empowering Bannon.
As regards Mars and the original topic, I'm not sure if Pence believes in the existence of Mars. What does his current Bible say on the topic? Pretty sure his first nutty religion believes in Mars, but much less certain about his even nuttier second choice.
You're wasting your time. It might be sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant or paid to fake it, but that doesn't matter. Actually, it might matter in the third case if it gets bonus payments for replies such as yours.
My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.
I recommend This Changes Everything on the general climate change topic, thought it's flawed in some ways. On the cyber-warfare topic, I'm just about to start The Shadow Factory. I read Cyber War back in 2015, and it was rather disturbing, especially regarding the Chinese capabilities on both offense and defense, but I think the Chinese are quite worried about climate change.
Not under that label (though I have studied some related material), but more importantly, you failed to establish any relevancy. Also, not even a nod to the original topic. Perhaps you want to suggest that logic will work differently on Mars?
Seems to me that you must be unaware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Without checking the references I am aware that around 1931 he proved that no logical system of sufficient complexity can actually capture the notion of "truth". Gross oversimplification, but I'd recommend Godel, Escher, Bach if you're sincerely interested in the topic. Or even Godel's original paper.
Oh yeah. The punchline. You can fix the system by extending it. Unfortunately, every new extension is merely broken in a new way.
My point was that this Mars project is a form of political lie. Therefore the ontology of lies was relevant to describing what sort of lie it was.
Guessing wildly, but perhaps your point was some sort of knee-jerk defense of Herr #PresidentTweety. If so, then this recent video on do-it-yourself brainwashing is relevant, but it won't help you (because you are too busy brainwashing yourself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Hmm... If I ever got a mod point to give, maybe that would merit a funny one?
However, as regards general problems with moderation, I'd prefer "happy" and "sad" as in the comment makes you feel that way. While I really wish there was more "funny" stuff on Slashdot (though perhaps my memories of more humor in the past are distorted), the problem with "funny" is how subjective it is. I think "happy" could capture the funny posts in a more 'objective' way.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I have to wonder about the moderation as "insightful". At least you [MrLogic17] posed your comment in the form of a question.
The obvious answer, though it doesn't appear in any of the visible replies (and I basically don't read ACs) is that you don't have to keep all of it clear, but only the parts that are actually in use under the current wind conditions, as well as selected taxiways.
This part is more speculative, but I think it would actually be easier to keep the "active" runways clear since the wind would always be blowing directly down the runway. From a mathematical perspective, the "entry point" of fresh snow would only be at one small point at the end of each active runway.
As regards the last part of your comment, pretty sure you've never flown a plane. I was a lousy pilot, but I'm pretty sure the wording refers to two landing and two taking off, but they aren't counting one of the taking off planes because it is waiting for the turbulence to settle down. Another possibility is that one side is being used for landings and they are counting the takeoff as one plane because that takes roughly twice as long per plane.
...they wouldn't have to fight against crosswinds. And three planes would be able to take off or land at the same time...
If three are landing at the same time, I'd say that at least one is fighting cross-winds.
Rather than blaming the author, I'd rather say that whoever moderated that comment as insightful doesn't read too well. As regards the author, it's merely obvious that he or she has no experience actually flying planes.
Oh well. Moot insofar as the article is on the edge of Slashdot death (at the bottom of the page). The largest disappointment is the lack of funny comments on such a rich target.
Reviewing my comment, I see that I mentioned Windows 2000, and I believe it included the NT kernel. If not, then perhaps I should have extended to XP?
However, in terms of required OS-level functionality, I think that most of the later versions of Windows can only be described as bloatware. If the focus had been on optimizing and improving and properly securing a smaller OS as the hardware improved, I think we would be living in a quite different world. For two things, the OS itself would be really fast and much more secure.
There was a time when I could figure out what processes were actually running on my computers and which ones I actually needed. Now the Task Manager shows me a vast list of stuff, most of which I'm not using, but various parts of it are tied together in complicated ways, while EVERY part might contain severe vulnerabilities.
Actually, I'm certain that there are still plenty of severe vulnerabilities. At this point I think it's one of the few things I'm certain about regarding the latest and so-called greatest versions of anything from Microsoft.
As regards the original topic of Windows 10 upgrades, the only reason I upgraded to Windows 10 was because Microsoft was holding the gun of unsecured Windows 7 at my head. Ditto XP, except that Microsoft didn't give me an upgrade path and two of those machines are now Linux boxen. (One of those machines even runs an ancient app that is still important to me, at least in terms of avoiding a painful rewrite and port.)
Okay, my apologies, but I was having trouble framing the context of your prior comment. It sounded like you were taking one of their absolute positions based on their confusion about what freedom means.
Not that I'm a linguist, but I suspect that a lot of the problem involves ambiguities in the English language around the many senses of "free". Again, not that I'm fluent, but insofar as I understand Japanese the way they use separate words for the various senses of "free" makes a lot of sense to me. (Going beyond that, I'm beginning to speculate on how the confusing modal verbs of English are related to similar confusions created by the modal confusions in Japanese. Perhaps everyone is trying to be as "proper" in a normative sense as their respective languages will permit?)
Well, his strong claim may have been incorrect in that sense, but I'm pretty sure that your claim is also incorrect. The trick is that they have to make some argument that the public interest is served by requiring the private businesses to respect people's Constitutional rights. Separate but equal? Remember? We went through all of this back in the '50s and '60s, so why are we still squabbling about it?
Perhaps more significantly, the government can pass laws or impose regulations that have restrictive effects on certain kinds of speech. I don't care how private you think your entity is, if you collect and distribute such speech as child pornography, you're going to get the heck regulated out of you. With my hearty endorsement, much as I approve of freedom of speech (which is NOT the same as freedom, though there are important relationships).
I'm afraid I suspect you [4145623] of being another libertarian confused about what freedom actually means. The presence of real-world constraints does not eliminate freedom, but rather they are part of the "meaningful" part of my sig equation.
I think I agree with you, but those videos are mostly labors of love and not driven by the advertising concerns that are the focus of the original article or the broken and even criminal economic models that are my main focus. There are some other gems on YouTube, but I think few of them are related to the google's greed, which is the deeper source of my increasing dislike of the google.
What if you had the free choice to contribute to a fund to keep the older software upgraded against security vulnerabilities? Would you prefer that to letting companies like Microsoft decide when the new version supports their marketing plans and the old versions will no longer be supported?
Then again, if I had my druthers, I might still be running Windows 95 or Windows 2000. My choice between those two would probably be based on the size of the relevant support projects...
Windows 3.1 is a tad too retrograde for me, but I can't see a lot of crucial OS-level improvements since 95 came out. Or at least almost nothing that I would require to be a part of the OS. I'm convinced that Microsoft's trade-off of unneeded features for unneeded complexity and unneeded security vulnerabilities has been negative for a long time.
I think I'm glad that you got the insightful mod, but at the same time I think you could have gone much deeper with it.
The deep part that bothers me most is how advertising is tied to corporations that WANT docile, obedient, and even STUPID consumers who will obey the ads. Of course the risk of destroying public education was that there is no bottom limit to the resulting stupidity. Maybe you could even wind up with an insane clown president? Naw, That could never happen.
I do have to say a bit about why I don't use ad blockers. I feel like that is a violation of the implicit (and sometimes even explicit) agreement between me and the people who are incurring real costs to make the content available. I think there has to be some kind of business model there, and if I participate on the basis of being exposed to ads, then I shouldn't play technical games with the details.
Having said that, I confess that I am allergic to ads. If I can remember ANY ad for a product, then I count that as a reason to buy something else. Seems to be kind of self-defeating to make me watch a company's ads, and I doubt that company would be willing to pay to show me their competitors' ads. I suppose the obvious "technical solution" from the perspective of the advertising agency with the perfect weapon would be to detect the polarity of the viewers of the ads, tailoring each ad to each sucker, and in cases such as mine, that tailoring would be to advertise the main competitor in the most annoying way.
Solution time? Let me CHOOSE THE ADS that I am interested in seeing BEFORE wasting my time by shoving them in my face.
First example: They could give me several links to pick from to determine which advertiser's ads I see. Interesting wrinkle would be to tweak the timing of the ads to find out how the customers feel about the advertised products: "Do you want to watch this video with two minutes of beer ads or with a one-minute ad for sanitary napkins?" If people keep selecting product A, then the system would keep increasing the ads for A seeking equilibrium.
Second example: Auction my time for watching ads. The auctioneer would have a strong incentive to protect my privacy to protect future auctions, and I would have a strong incentive to give the auctioneer some real data about what I actually want to buy. The companies bidding for my time would have a strong incentive to reach truly qualified and interested customers.
Can you believe that I can actually fantasize about applying such solutions to the cesspool that is YouTube? I must be getting even more delusional.
Everyone say goodbye to dissenting opinions on YouTube.
The basis of the "insightful" moderation is eluding me. Par for today's Slashdot, though I remain more discouraged by the lack of actually "funny" comments. Or perhaps I should say dismayed by both?
Or maybe it's just too hard for me to imagine why anyone would pay to advertise anything on YouTube. For a lot of the user-generated content the adjective execrable is just too kind. Not sure about "dissenting opinions", but the only ones I remember noticing were on the wrong side of execrable.
These is some legitimate and good content, but it's mostly teasers and since it's purpose is to advertise itself, then any other ads are just confusing the issue, and my feeling is that most of the teaser content is free of ads, or at least the ads are not intrusive. Things like snippets from HBO or paid news channels.
The rest of the wannabe good content is pirated stuff. Much of that is reduced below good by the insertion of lots of intrusive ads, obviously for cases where the pirate is profiting that way, but YouTube has an obvious vested interest in supporting that sort of thing as long as some sucker is paying for the ads. Then there is a HUGE amount of fake piracy that is just intended to lure you to an installer where your computer will get pwned. Offensive enough, but downright EVIL when it is targeting innocent children, and LOTS of it has been doing exactly that for many years.
I used to waste some time trying to fight against it, but I eventually realized the google is too EVIL to care now, as long as they are making money off it. The motto about "Don't be evil" is long dead in favor of "All your attention are belong to us." However there is a real threat to the google's new mission statement. They had to revise it when they realized there was too much information out there and that "useful" was a complicated notion. The new mission of the google is to make the advertisers' information available and the utility function is the corporations' profits. Humans are only incidentally involved.
Hire me! Hire me!
I love hard work!
I could watch it all day!
But seriously folks, I mostly enjoyed my work and didn't even want to retire when the big three-letter-company was done with me. Looking at the developing situation, now I think I got out just in time.
So now we have a level of people who spend all their time watching other people working (or faking it), but the obvious new job opportunity is to get a job watching the guys who are watching the other guys.
It's the ultimate in job security, because they'll always need to hire someone at the next level up!
Unbounded recursion? Resources exhausted? Whatever do you mean?
Whoever moderated your comment as "insightful" obviously did it based on agreeing with you, not on the basis of your fake evidence. In contrast to those "insightful" moderators, you got me to follow your link and it does NOT support your claims.
Actually, the so-called Republicans have institutionalized party discipline that would make Lenin blush. His Bolsheviks were supposed to have been the experts, but now they look like amateurs.
Not that I can really defend the Democratic Party. Insofar as I have supported them, it has always been a kind of allergic reaction to the gawdawful candidates the GOP has run, especially at the top of the ticket.
In my youth, I actually did research on the top races and almost always concluded the Democratic candidate was better (or at least less bad), while on the down-ticket races I tended to vote for whoever seemed less represented, such as women or candidates with minority-sounding names. When I got older, I discovered that the down-ticket races were more important than I had realized, but by that time the down-ticket winners had gerrymandered my vote to meaninglessness. They almost managed to disenfranchise me completely last time, though it didn't make any difference (of course).
The demographics actually prove the GOP is no more, notwithstanding their successful conversion therapy of the old Dixiecrat racists into Reagan Republicans. So they've adopted a new strategy: If you can't beat 'em, break the game.
Evidently time to brush up on my Russian.
Hmm... Humor-rich target, but this is the first funny-moderated comment I've found. (I scan from the back...) Unfortunately, it should be "insightful", even though you didn't explicitly mention group 4 is much larger than group 2. It is possible that your company has more employees in group 2 than group 4, but the joke depends on it being the other way... It's the old false positive joke for medical diagnosis.
Oh well. Moot for me, since I never get a mod point to give. Then again, I'd probably prefer not participating in the travesty unless there were some signs the moderation system itself was being improved...
Z^2
Okay, so what was the ruling that invalidated the shrink-wrap contract? I must have missed it. We better warn Microsoft and friends.
Hmm... Acknowledged. Then perhaps I should have explicitly restricted my comment to so-called classical logic?
Hmm... I'm largely inclined to agree, but the European situation is complicated. I think my largest caveats are that many of the European countries are moving strongly towards renewable energy and they also want to reduce their dependence upon Russia.
Z^1
Basically your reply convinces me that you've never made a serious effort to read one of these EULAs.
By the way, I think I should clarify that I don't think Microsoft created the strategy. However I do think they've perfected it, and now it's almost SOP in large companies. The true solution of breaking the excessively large companies into smaller ones seems unlikely to be adopted.
We're getting too far from Mars... Therefore I think that all I want to say is that I doubt the Saudis will use their sovereign fund is such wise and benevolent ways. I think the ruling family will just take the money and run, perhaps to Denmark where I think their sovereign wealth fund will be invested well. The extractionists are already committed to releasing way too much carbon and the end game doesn't matter if you are only thinking about dying with the most toys.
I'm certainly not denying that Pence is terrible, but I believe he is terrible within normal bounds of awfulness. I even agree that his goals are egregious, but I think he is basically not that competent. In comparison, I think Trump is much less competent, but his damage potential is much higher because he can be played so easily. I'm not so much in favor of removing the Donald as in dis-empowering Bannon.
As regards Mars and the original topic, I'm not sure if Pence believes in the existence of Mars. What does his current Bible say on the topic? Pretty sure his first nutty religion believes in Mars, but much less certain about his even nuttier second choice.
You're wasting your time. It might be sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant or paid to fake it, but that doesn't matter. Actually, it might matter in the third case if it gets bonus payments for replies such as yours.
My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.
I recommend This Changes Everything on the general climate change topic, thought it's flawed in some ways. On the cyber-warfare topic, I'm just about to start The Shadow Factory . I read Cyber War back in 2015, and it was rather disturbing, especially regarding the Chinese capabilities on both offense and defense, but I think the Chinese are quite worried about climate change.
Not under that label (though I have studied some related material), but more importantly, you failed to establish any relevancy. Also, not even a nod to the original topic. Perhaps you want to suggest that logic will work differently on Mars?
Seems to me that you must be unaware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Without checking the references I am aware that around 1931 he proved that no logical system of sufficient complexity can actually capture the notion of "truth". Gross oversimplification, but I'd recommend Godel, Escher, Bach if you're sincerely interested in the topic. Or even Godel's original paper.
Oh yeah. The punchline. You can fix the system by extending it. Unfortunately, every new extension is merely broken in a new way.
My point was that this Mars project is a form of political lie. Therefore the ontology of lies was relevant to describing what sort of lie it was.
Guessing wildly, but perhaps your point was some sort of knee-jerk defense of Herr #PresidentTweety. If so, then this recent video on do-it-yourself brainwashing is relevant, but it won't help you (because you are too busy brainwashing yourself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
At least you didn't complain about the 2nd typo I noticed.
I do like your suggestion, but even better if you could have worked "oil" in there somewhere.
Hmm... If I ever got a mod point to give, maybe that would merit a funny one?
However, as regards general problems with moderation, I'd prefer "happy" and "sad" as in the comment makes you feel that way. While I really wish there was more "funny" stuff on Slashdot (though perhaps my memories of more humor in the past are distorted), the problem with "funny" is how subjective it is. I think "happy" could capture the funny posts in a more 'objective' way.