Thing is though, you've still got to solve Problem B to do that, which equally probably wasn't trivial.
The point is that you were going to solve Problem B anyway. For example, I think we'll see a decline in the cost of space-based science missions just due to manufacture improvements on Earth (and eventually the entry of private charity into that endeavor).
And there's no GOP equivalent of Barack Obama, a guy who has honestly tried to reach out to the GOP, and taken a lot of flack from his own side for doing so.
Huh, looks like you missed the GOP nominee, Romney himself. Let us keep in mind that he supposed a Massachusetts version of the health care program that Obama is taking so much heat for.
Frankly, I think the problem today really is with current Democrat leadership and their followers. There's way too much "ends justify the means" (where the means are brazen attempts to undermine the Constitution).
For example, why have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? One doesn't need an an organization with that structure to protect the rights of the customer. Or the Obamacare issues, such as passing massive costs on to states and fining people for not carrying health insurance.
in that speech he actually praised Paul Ryan for his anti-deficit initiatives
Obama likes to talk a lot. You might have noticed that.
It's worth recalling here that Obama used to be a birther himself and claimed he was born in Kenya for the purpose of selling some of his books (at least one of which he backed out of).
So not only did we have the possibility of Obama being born in Kenya, but he made that claim himself at times. So why again, was it a bad idea to demand his birth certificate?
The thing I find remarkable about Obama is how, even by the already lofty standards of politicians, pathological and self-centered he appears throughout his adult life.
Bush didn't have a senate whose Democratic members filibustered more (by a huge factor) than any other senate in history.
Fortunately, Obama and the leadership of congress were incompetent enough that not much crap got passed. It's just not that hard to override a filibuster when all you need is one or two votes (which was most of the situation theoretically during that period). But they needed a lot more than one vote as it turned out, since they couldn't get their own party on board for many of these attempts without huge concessions.
I find it interesting how many people on Slashdot continue to blame Republicans and a successful and warranted use of the Senate filibuster for what really was a Democrat problem.
It is worth noting that this effect does actually happen to some degree. For example, the radio telescope array that they use, includes a great deal of computing power for controlling the system and signal and image processing. That technology didn't need to be independently developed from scratch.
As to cost, that system apparently costs more than a billion dollars. But I doubt that the system would have been the same order of magnitude, should one have developed it in 1970 (with the same capabilities as the current one) instead of now. Similarly, I imagine we'll find that computing technology and manufacture/construction would have advanced in the next twenty years to make the project somewhat easier and cheaper to do twenty years from now.
The real issue to such things is that there is a time value to research and development. Doing and learning things now does have greater value than doing those things twenty years from now.
Let me put it in terms you can relate to: If I walk into a recycling center, select twenty dead computers at random, disassemble them, and put them on a table, how many working computers can you make? Oh, each of those computers is 5 to 30 years old. They also contain explosives and occasionally radioactive material. Now realize that computers at least have standards for how they're supposed to fit together.
And someone stuck those computers in hard radiation for most of their life. So various parts don't work or work incompletely.
I'm sure home brewing has led to all sorts of fun accidents and illnesses, including blindness inducing ones. You just haven't seen them. The distillation thing is about tax revenue and frankly, I doubt a home distiller who never sells their product would have any trouble with the law.
The first order quirk of quantum mechanics is a different counting of states than you get classically. For example, if you flip two coins, you have a quarter chance of them both ending up heads or tails each. And a fifty percent chance of them ending up mixed. If those two coins are bosonic quantum states then there's a one third chance of each outcome, both heads, both tails, or mixed. There is only one mixed state because the two mixed states of the classical case are identical in the quantum case.
If the coins are fermionic quantum states, then there's no case where they can have identical flips (this is the case with two electrons trapped in a small space). Then the only state possible is the mixed state (and for what it's worth, it only appears once for the same reason as above).
and he died from it too by exclusively using alternative medicine to treat a cancer.
From what I understand, his particular cancer was considered untreatable. The cheaper thing would have been no treatment aside from pain treatment and psychological counseling, but that's not exactly human nature. At least, alternative medicine would have helped emotionally and perhaps physically through the placebo effect.
Shouldn't you come up with a better idea first before shooting down the current one? If the ice is in a ziploc bag and wrapped in a towel, then it's unlikely to leak. One can protect the electronics in a similar way.
Why the piss would you go to a residential compound which doesn't allow electronics devices?
I imagine that's what he's getting paid to do. One could ask similarly why my current employer doesn't have me flying cool spaceships.
Keep in mind that the whole reason big physics projects are being threatened in the first place, is because it is of value to a large portion of the electorate. The political forces that are trying to preserve federal spending aren't going to threaten to take away, oh hypothetically, Halliburton "cost plus" reconstruction contracts in Iraq because that would trigger a "Hey, that's a great idea!" response from the typical US voter.
than considering that maybe one side of the political aisle actually is better for them.
What makes you think that's an issue? I find in these claims that people conflate their interests with the interests of other people or of society in general. What's good for my interests, isn't necessarily what's good for yours.
I also find it interesting that people ignore the camel in the tent, the US's financial situation. Something has to be cut.
So they had one to two votes shy of full control of the Senate which in turn would have meant full control of Congress. I wonder why so many people still make excuses for this. It's painfully clear that they should have had greater control of both branches of Congress and the presidency than they did.
And that the Democrats should have been able to do most of what they wished. All they needed was a few Republican defectors and they had plenty of political capital with which to make those bribes.
Instead, they couldn't even get their own people on board. Obamacare, for example, was a huge own goal. It was remarkably bad, hurried, ponderous law and required massive bribes just to Democrat congresspeople in order to pass. And it lost the House for the Democrats.
Kinda like the War on Drugs. Drugs are bad because they get people put in jail! Therefore, they should be illegal.
If "Drugs" had the same potential to harm or kill lots of innocent people, including those who happen to be hundreds of miles downwind from the drug user. To sum up the problem with using nukes as intended in war, they aren't "victimless".
By Iran???
You think Iran is going to risk destroying itself just to take out Israel?
The problem here is that answer is going to be "Israel doesn't know." They don't have a magical ability to read minds or determine the future. Iran will have the same problem about Israeli leaders. And if someone with enough nukes starts thinking "my country will die, if I don't ambush my opponent first", then nukes will probably get used in an attempt at a surprise attack. Such is the nature of the game.
The sort of logic applies to other relatively wealthy neighbors, particularly, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (instructively, not to Turkey, because it has nuclear protection from the US and the EU). If Iran gets nukes, then they have increased reason to get nukes of their own.
There's no false sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
FTFY
Look, there's no point to statements that are conditional on you being a colossal idiot. What promises can the current shaky Pakistani government make about future Pakistani governments after it has been deposed? The only other major changes in government by a country with nuclear weapons was Russia which managed a peaceful transition around 1989-1991 and France in the 50s when it upgraded to the Fifth Republic.
At this point, it is hoped that if the current Pakistani government falls, then someone will have the opportunity to spirit out their current stock of nuclear bombs and human know how to an existing nuclear power, such as the US.
Iran has the same problem as Pakistan. It has a government that simply put, isn't likely to be around in 50 years. So who will have the nukes then? And what will they do with them? Maybe they'll hand them off to one of their allies? But maybe they won't get the chance to do so.
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
I think you're the fool. Whether you "ignore the risk" or embrace it wholeheartedly, nothing changes: nukes will be developed and yes, they will eventually be used.
Then why don't these countries already have a bristling pile of nuclear bombs ready for use? The thing you apparently don't get is that nuclear nonproliferation has been remarkably successful over the past half century and that in turn is helped greatly because owning nuclear weapons is current very expensive (though not prohibitively expensive). It is quite possible to prevent the spread, much less use, of such weapons.
Think of it this way: do you have to consciously make an effort to remember how to breath? Do you have to say aloud "breath in, breath out" all day, everyday? If you had to do that, it greatly impedes, if not make it impossible, to think or say other things. Heaven forbid you go to sleep or lose consciousness.
OTOH, part of our nervous system does have to do that. We just aren't usually aware of it. Instead, I'd point out that empirical models are already frequently tested by what we observe (especially when we expand how or what we observe), that makes us very aware that there are things that could be going on outside of our current limits of observation.
But where is a military large enough to crush all dissent planet wide going to come from? How would it be paid for?
From the source that empires have always used for such things. Themselves.
Also, unlike Tibet with China, some of those factions have nukes (and lots of them). There's not much point in having dominion over a dead planet.
Unless, of course, the empire's core consists of the nuke-wielding factions. For example, a sci fi example was the so-called "CoDominium" where the US and a "revitalized USSR" (according to Wikipedia) had united to exclude everyone else from having nuclear weapons. They enforced this with the threat of nuclear weapons. I gather the other nuclear powers were disarmed under threat of obliteration.
Then there's the three stable totalitarian empires of 1984 which used eternal war as one of their many tools for controlling their populace.
Frankly, I don't see the world as being qualitatively different enough that empire building couldn't be as effective in 2020 AD as it was in 1 AD (to give a historical era where most of the known world was covered with four empires.
Yes, and it should be your explanation as well. The history of Silicon Valley is obviously not purely free market. There's considerable public funding of education and many of the early adopters for technology were public entities. But the fundamental advantage of Silicon Valley was the ability to support high tech businesses from initial startup all the way to large multinational without a lot of fuss.
Unfortunately, they're suffering from a massive case of survivor bias.
Given that the "bias" is echoed in reality (the failures generally are orders of magnitude less valuable than the successes and the successes are immensely valuable), I don't see the point of your observation. I imagine most residents of the area are hoping that survivor bias continues for some time to come.
And unlike the gold rush, there isn't a reason to expect the boom to end merely because a resource has been exhausted.
I don't really think Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan pakistan or afghanistan feel threatened any more or less by a nuclear powered Iran.
First, I doubt those countries, particularly Pakistan, would agree. First, at least two of those countries are likely to be downwind from any nuclear retribution against Iran. Canada and Mexico have similar concerns about the US's nuclear program.
Second, there are plenty more countries where those came from. Israel is the obvious problem. I imagine a lot of people think that the mutually assured destruction model of US/USSR strategy would hold here as well. I don't think that holds for several reasons. First,I don't think the conditions are true. An massive nuclear strike on Israel or on Iran might not result in the destruction of the instigator.
And the two aren't far apart by missile. There won't be a relatively comfortable hour or so warning as with US/USSR ICBMs. So any sort of warning system has to be able to retaliate with a few minutes or the country just might not have a nuclear response capability by the definition of MAD. Subs would provide such capability, but they can be destroyed more easily, if located.
And then there's the problem of accidents, crazy leaders, and such. Pakistan is the current poster child for why nuclear weapons are a problem for the neighbors. They have an unstable government, they've already distributed nuclear technology (and probably have permanently harmed nonproliferation efforts), and they're occasionally at war with India. There's no sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
Then there's the other neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both would desire a nuclear counter to an Iranian nuclear weapons. It's unknown how hard they would try.But it's worth noting that Egypt's GDP is roughly similar in size to the US's at the end of the Second World War while Saudi Arabia's is roughly double (Iran has about 50% more GDP than Egypt). if they obtain nuclear weapons, then that encourages everyone else in the region to do so.
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
Let's see the Korean War, The Viet Nam War, two Gulf Wars, The War in Afghanistan, a couple dozen outbreaks in Africa and the Mid-East. That's just the U.S, Add the fun and games from all the other countries in the world and there's been about 12 war free days since we nuked Japan.
Peace doesn't mean complete absence of war. If you add up the body count for every war since the end of the Second World War, you barely get something comparable to the First World War (excluding the influenza epidemic).
Nukes don't stop war.
They stopped total war in Europe after 1945. The USSR was an extremely aggressive military power that completely changed its approach after the development of nuclear weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
Thing is though, you've still got to solve Problem B to do that, which equally probably wasn't trivial.
The point is that you were going to solve Problem B anyway. For example, I think we'll see a decline in the cost of space-based science missions just due to manufacture improvements on Earth (and eventually the entry of private charity into that endeavor).
And there's no GOP equivalent of Barack Obama, a guy who has honestly tried to reach out to the GOP, and taken a lot of flack from his own side for doing so.
Huh, looks like you missed the GOP nominee, Romney himself. Let us keep in mind that he supposed a Massachusetts version of the health care program that Obama is taking so much heat for.
Frankly, I think the problem today really is with current Democrat leadership and their followers. There's way too much "ends justify the means" (where the means are brazen attempts to undermine the Constitution).
For example, why have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? One doesn't need an an organization with that structure to protect the rights of the customer. Or the Obamacare issues, such as passing massive costs on to states and fining people for not carrying health insurance.
in that speech he actually praised Paul Ryan for his anti-deficit initiatives
Obama likes to talk a lot. You might have noticed that.
So not only did we have the possibility of Obama being born in Kenya, but he made that claim himself at times. So why again, was it a bad idea to demand his birth certificate?
The thing I find remarkable about Obama is how, even by the already lofty standards of politicians, pathological and self-centered he appears throughout his adult life.
Bush didn't have a senate whose Democratic members filibustered more (by a huge factor) than any other senate in history.
Fortunately, Obama and the leadership of congress were incompetent enough that not much crap got passed. It's just not that hard to override a filibuster when all you need is one or two votes (which was most of the situation theoretically during that period). But they needed a lot more than one vote as it turned out, since they couldn't get their own party on board for many of these attempts without huge concessions.
I find it interesting how many people on Slashdot continue to blame Republicans and a successful and warranted use of the Senate filibuster for what really was a Democrat problem.
It is worth noting that this effect does actually happen to some degree. For example, the radio telescope array that they use, includes a great deal of computing power for controlling the system and signal and image processing. That technology didn't need to be independently developed from scratch.
As to cost, that system apparently costs more than a billion dollars. But I doubt that the system would have been the same order of magnitude, should one have developed it in 1970 (with the same capabilities as the current one) instead of now. Similarly, I imagine we'll find that computing technology and manufacture/construction would have advanced in the next twenty years to make the project somewhat easier and cheaper to do twenty years from now.
The real issue to such things is that there is a time value to research and development. Doing and learning things now does have greater value than doing those things twenty years from now.
Let me put it in terms you can relate to: If I walk into a recycling center, select twenty dead computers at random, disassemble them, and put them on a table, how many working computers can you make? Oh, each of those computers is 5 to 30 years old. They also contain explosives and occasionally radioactive material. Now realize that computers at least have standards for how they're supposed to fit together.
And someone stuck those computers in hard radiation for most of their life. So various parts don't work or work incompletely.
I'm sure home brewing has led to all sorts of fun accidents and illnesses, including blindness inducing ones. You just haven't seen them. The distillation thing is about tax revenue and frankly, I doubt a home distiller who never sells their product would have any trouble with the law.
Meh, that's nothing but long-discredited trickle-down economics.
When you boil it down.
Well, I guess there is some truth to you assertion.
The first order quirk of quantum mechanics is a different counting of states than you get classically. For example, if you flip two coins, you have a quarter chance of them both ending up heads or tails each. And a fifty percent chance of them ending up mixed. If those two coins are bosonic quantum states then there's a one third chance of each outcome, both heads, both tails, or mixed. There is only one mixed state because the two mixed states of the classical case are identical in the quantum case.
If the coins are fermionic quantum states, then there's no case where they can have identical flips (this is the case with two electrons trapped in a small space). Then the only state possible is the mixed state (and for what it's worth, it only appears once for the same reason as above).
First of all you have to provide a scientific definition of "race".
One such can be provided via morphology. It's good enough to determine general ethnicity (as we define it) of skeletons, for example.
and he died from it too by exclusively using alternative medicine to treat a cancer.
From what I understand, his particular cancer was considered untreatable. The cheaper thing would have been no treatment aside from pain treatment and psychological counseling, but that's not exactly human nature. At least, alternative medicine would have helped emotionally and perhaps physically through the placebo effect.
Why the piss would you go to a residential compound which doesn't allow electronics devices?
I imagine that's what he's getting paid to do. One could ask similarly why my current employer doesn't have me flying cool spaceships.
Keep in mind that the whole reason big physics projects are being threatened in the first place, is because it is of value to a large portion of the electorate. The political forces that are trying to preserve federal spending aren't going to threaten to take away, oh hypothetically, Halliburton "cost plus" reconstruction contracts in Iraq because that would trigger a "Hey, that's a great idea!" response from the typical US voter.
than considering that maybe one side of the political aisle actually is better for them.
What makes you think that's an issue? I find in these claims that people conflate their interests with the interests of other people or of society in general. What's good for my interests, isn't necessarily what's good for yours.
I also find it interesting that people ignore the camel in the tent, the US's financial situation. Something has to be cut.
So they had one to two votes shy of full control of the Senate which in turn would have meant full control of Congress. I wonder why so many people still make excuses for this. It's painfully clear that they should have had greater control of both branches of Congress and the presidency than they did.
And that the Democrats should have been able to do most of what they wished. All they needed was a few Republican defectors and they had plenty of political capital with which to make those bribes.
Instead, they couldn't even get their own people on board. Obamacare, for example, was a huge own goal. It was remarkably bad, hurried, ponderous law and required massive bribes just to Democrat congresspeople in order to pass. And it lost the House for the Democrats.
It's the "we've wasted too much money buying votes from the poor, the elderly, and the scared to fund science" mentality.
Not to mention the considerable gulf between funding science and actually doing science.
It's the "free lunch" mentality. Be it in the corporate board room or the voting booth.
Kinda like the War on Drugs. Drugs are bad because they get people put in jail! Therefore, they should be illegal.
If "Drugs" had the same potential to harm or kill lots of innocent people, including those who happen to be hundreds of miles downwind from the drug user. To sum up the problem with using nukes as intended in war, they aren't "victimless".
By Iran???
You think Iran is going to risk destroying itself just to take out Israel?
The problem here is that answer is going to be "Israel doesn't know." They don't have a magical ability to read minds or determine the future. Iran will have the same problem about Israeli leaders. And if someone with enough nukes starts thinking "my country will die, if I don't ambush my opponent first", then nukes will probably get used in an attempt at a surprise attack. Such is the nature of the game.
The sort of logic applies to other relatively wealthy neighbors, particularly, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (instructively, not to Turkey, because it has nuclear protection from the US and the EU). If Iran gets nukes, then they have increased reason to get nukes of their own.
There's no false sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
FTFY
Look, there's no point to statements that are conditional on you being a colossal idiot. What promises can the current shaky Pakistani government make about future Pakistani governments after it has been deposed? The only other major changes in government by a country with nuclear weapons was Russia which managed a peaceful transition around 1989-1991 and France in the 50s when it upgraded to the Fifth Republic.
At this point, it is hoped that if the current Pakistani government falls, then someone will have the opportunity to spirit out their current stock of nuclear bombs and human know how to an existing nuclear power, such as the US.
Iran has the same problem as Pakistan. It has a government that simply put, isn't likely to be around in 50 years. So who will have the nukes then? And what will they do with them? Maybe they'll hand them off to one of their allies? But maybe they won't get the chance to do so.
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
I think you're the fool. Whether you "ignore the risk" or embrace it wholeheartedly, nothing changes: nukes will be developed and yes, they will eventually be used.
Then why don't these countries already have a bristling pile of nuclear bombs ready for use? The thing you apparently don't get is that nuclear nonproliferation has been remarkably successful over the past half century and that in turn is helped greatly because owning nuclear weapons is current very expensive (though not prohibitively expensive). It is quite possible to prevent the spread, much less use, of such weapons.
Think of it this way: do you have to consciously make an effort to remember how to breath? Do you have to say aloud "breath in, breath out" all day, everyday? If you had to do that, it greatly impedes, if not make it impossible, to think or say other things. Heaven forbid you go to sleep or lose consciousness.
OTOH, part of our nervous system does have to do that. We just aren't usually aware of it. Instead, I'd point out that empirical models are already frequently tested by what we observe (especially when we expand how or what we observe), that makes us very aware that there are things that could be going on outside of our current limits of observation.
But where is a military large enough to crush all dissent planet wide going to come from? How would it be paid for?
From the source that empires have always used for such things. Themselves.
Also, unlike Tibet with China, some of those factions have nukes (and lots of them). There's not much point in having dominion over a dead planet.
Unless, of course, the empire's core consists of the nuke-wielding factions. For example, a sci fi example was the so-called "CoDominium" where the US and a "revitalized USSR" (according to Wikipedia) had united to exclude everyone else from having nuclear weapons. They enforced this with the threat of nuclear weapons. I gather the other nuclear powers were disarmed under threat of obliteration.
Then there's the three stable totalitarian empires of 1984 which used eternal war as one of their many tools for controlling their populace.
Frankly, I don't see the world as being qualitatively different enough that empire building couldn't be as effective in 2020 AD as it was in 1 AD (to give a historical era where most of the known world was covered with four empires.
Yes, and it should be your explanation as well. The history of Silicon Valley is obviously not purely free market. There's considerable public funding of education and many of the early adopters for technology were public entities. But the fundamental advantage of Silicon Valley was the ability to support high tech businesses from initial startup all the way to large multinational without a lot of fuss.
Unfortunately, they're suffering from a massive case of survivor bias.
Given that the "bias" is echoed in reality (the failures generally are orders of magnitude less valuable than the successes and the successes are immensely valuable), I don't see the point of your observation. I imagine most residents of the area are hoping that survivor bias continues for some time to come.
And unlike the gold rush, there isn't a reason to expect the boom to end merely because a resource has been exhausted.
I don't really think Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan pakistan or afghanistan feel threatened any more or less by a nuclear powered Iran.
First, I doubt those countries, particularly Pakistan, would agree. First, at least two of those countries are likely to be downwind from any nuclear retribution against Iran. Canada and Mexico have similar concerns about the US's nuclear program.
Second, there are plenty more countries where those came from. Israel is the obvious problem. I imagine a lot of people think that the mutually assured destruction model of US/USSR strategy would hold here as well. I don't think that holds for several reasons. First,I don't think the conditions are true. An massive nuclear strike on Israel or on Iran might not result in the destruction of the instigator.
And the two aren't far apart by missile. There won't be a relatively comfortable hour or so warning as with US/USSR ICBMs. So any sort of warning system has to be able to retaliate with a few minutes or the country just might not have a nuclear response capability by the definition of MAD. Subs would provide such capability, but they can be destroyed more easily, if located.
And then there's the problem of accidents, crazy leaders, and such. Pakistan is the current poster child for why nuclear weapons are a problem for the neighbors. They have an unstable government, they've already distributed nuclear technology (and probably have permanently harmed nonproliferation efforts), and they're occasionally at war with India. There's no sense of long term nuclear security unless Pakistan gets rid of its nuclear weapons. Iran will have the same problems.
Then there's the other neighbors. Saudi Arabia and Egypt both would desire a nuclear counter to an Iranian nuclear weapons. It's unknown how hard they would try.But it's worth noting that Egypt's GDP is roughly similar in size to the US's at the end of the Second World War while Saudi Arabia's is roughly double (Iran has about 50% more GDP than Egypt). if they obtain nuclear weapons, then that encourages everyone else in the region to do so.
I think it would be very foolish to ignore the risk of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa, much less the rest of the world (for example, Venezuela's current relationship with Iran includes some exchange of ballistic missile technology).
Oh yeah, we've done so well since Hiroshima!
And indeed we have as the previous poster noted.
Let's see the Korean War, The Viet Nam War, two Gulf Wars, The War in Afghanistan, a couple dozen outbreaks in Africa and the Mid-East. That's just the U.S, Add the fun and games from all the other countries in the world and there's been about 12 war free days since we nuked Japan.
Peace doesn't mean complete absence of war. If you add up the body count for every war since the end of the Second World War, you barely get something comparable to the First World War (excluding the influenza epidemic).
Nukes don't stop war.
They stopped total war in Europe after 1945. The USSR was an extremely aggressive military power that completely changed its approach after the development of nuclear weapons.
Do not marry a psychopath!
Make her a CEO instead.