To me this seems like medical cynicism in the worst way.
Yeah, because it'd be way more optimistic to let her fucking die.
Sorry, but you and random board poster sound like the cynical ones, assuming that having installed this new device doctors will not monitor her and study the effects of her new heart. Or is that even the word for implying that we're better off letting people die until we can (somehow) answer these questions, rather than face the consequences of keeping them alive and learn from it?
Come on now, there's no point to having a term "art" when you use it as a synonym for "almost everything that anybody does." When you refuse to define art specifically you're really just saying "oh look, EVERYTHING is beautiful, ART is beautiful, thus EVERYTHING is ART!" It's a very feel-good definition... but what's the point of having the term in the first place?
But obviously not EVERYTHING is art by even this expansive definition. The point is that art is the things that we do that aren't what every other organism on earth does: Survive.
The specific examples McCloud uses of not-art, in reference to a prehistoric caveman, is the pursuit of food, the (physical) pursuit of a mate, and fleeing from a predator. When the caveman evades the predator, and rather than simply move on to the next survival-related task, he sticks his tongue out at it? That's art.
I tend to think of art as something that is purposefully created with the intent to express some aspect of the human experience.
Oh I agree, but we are expressive, emotive creatures, and there's precious little we do that doesn't express some aspect of the human experience. We've been expressing ourselves artistically for tens of thousands of years before there was a word for art, much less arguments about its definitions. It may not be a completely unique human characteristic, but it is certainly one of our defining ones.
I personally don't see a difference between expressing an aspect of the human experience, and deliberately setting out to make a statement about the human experience, other than one is more pretentious. If I paint a picture of two people with no explicit intention of saying anything about humanity, and yet nevertheless you can see an expression of love, or distance, or solitude, or whatever, how is that not art? You may not mean to say anything about the human experience when you give a flower to the girl you like, yet you are. The conversation we're having right now is art.
The essence of my friend's point about sex is that we, as social, emotional, expressive humans, can't make love without expressing your own humanity, without creating art. I disagree with him, I think there's fucking that's simply fucking as primordial and instinctual as that between lizards, but I see his point.
Yes, a pencil is beautiful and it allows us to do so very much... but was its creator's intent to move us? Not likely, they were probably just a factory worker (and even the designer of the first pencil probably was doing it for a functional purpose).
The factory worker was earning a paycheck, which is the modern-day equivalent of acquiring food and shelter. It's about survival. The same thing goes for the designer and his paycheck. Our day jobs aren't art; at least, not necessarily. When he chose an aesthetically pleasing color to paint the pencil? Art. The architect of the Empire State Building was earning a paycheck to ensure his survival, and building something completely practical, but also something beautiful and expressive. That's art.
Is it clear that not EVERYTHING is art? There is a distinction here, and it's an important one.
Similarly, the movie "Date Movie" is not something I would consider art... the creators intended it to be funny, and all I could feel is disgust. My emotion and the author's (probable) intention happened to be polar opposites.
This "definition" has issues... yes. How do we know the author's intended meaning? How close should an audience's reaction be to the intent?
And here I disagree with you very strongly. Date Movie is without a doubt art for any worthwhile definition... just crappy art. Who cares that your reaction was not what the creators intended? That doesn't turn art into not-art. That just means the creator failed. Bad art is still art. I categorically reject any definition of "art" where perceived quality of the art is the metric, as you al
Geeze. Next time, could you at least demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of simple issues with an inappropriate analogy? That would at least be in-character and potentially amusing.
If you see a painting and your only reaction is "oh, that's pretty" it's probably NOT art. If it takes your breath away and makes you say "WOW!" it is art.
No, that's the difference between good art and banal art. NOT the difference between art and not-art.
I heard a definition of art the other day that really seemd insightful (I studied art in college).
That's nice. Lots of people have studied art in college, and actually create art, and have a much broader and less elitist view of the definition of art.
Personally, I like Scott McCloud's definition of art: Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the base acts of survival and reproduction is art.
And a friend of mine, who is a professional artist, gets offended when I tell him that definition because in his view, the act of human reproduction is inseparable from art. His definition is even more expansive than McCloud's.
But hey, you studied art in school and thus can tell what is and isn't art based on how good it is. Tell me, by your own definition of art, have you ever created any? And does your answer imply that you are qualified to judge or not?
Haha. Just to be clear though -- "Dazzler" is the lame-ass mutant with the amazing ability to make shiny sparkles, while the "Bedazzler" is what her she used to make her disco ass even more lame.
So I guess that's the future of crowd control? The riot police will just read lists of ways in which our tax money is being spent. The real clincher is when they read off the cost of creating and providing copies to all law enforcement of a list of ways in which our tax money is being spent...
Launching first-strike attacks for the reasons of so-called self-defence is outrageous and immoral. You wait until someone has KILLED you, and tehn you get to kill them back. Not before.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not ("wait until someone has KILLED you" makes me suspect not, but who can be sure?) so this is a "Choose Your Own Adventure" response.
If not serious: Hahaha, good one!:)
If serious: Who gives a shit? Israel doesn't. They aren't going to wait to get nuked before acting if they feel they must. They are not joking about "Never Again". Your moral outrage changes not a single fact. Why can't people understand that?
Iran is not North Korea. North Korea has what I call a "sane government", in nuclear terms, by which I mean that they would in practice not risk starting a nuclear war, because they do not want to disrupt the status quo and risk losing what they have (particularly, they wouldn't want to risk losing power in their own country).
And you think the leaders of Iran would be willing to lose (not risk losing -- lose) The Islamic Republic? The most powerful nation in the Muslim world, the source of all their power and wealth and relevance?
But North Korea is not going to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. There's essentially zero risk they'd do that. It would be completely out of character for them.
But starting unprovoked wars is in-character for Iran? Gee by my count NK is ahead on that count in the last century.
Iran is not North Korea. The government of Iran is, in a word, unstable. Khamenei would be dangerous enough, and then there's Ahmadinejad.
Khamenei is not insane. He is not stupid. He is not suicidal. He will not sacrifice everything he's worked for just to strike Israel. You don't go through all the trouble to build up your nation, acquire wealth and technology, and then go through the trouble to develop nuclear weapons just to throw it all away in a suicide attack. Suicide bombings are for the ignorant masses, not for the power brokers at the top of the food chain. Their vision for the future has Iran as a world power and the leader of the Muslim world. NOT as a glass parking lot. Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a sabre-rattling figure head. He says what he says because it plays well with the conservative base, not because he's a suicidal idiot.
They want nuclear weapons for the same reason everyone else wants nuclear weapons: To secure their country from attack, not to ensure that it is destroyed. They want to engage in MAD politics. They don't want to end up the next Iraq.
It's really funny hearing you call NK's government "sane" and Iran's "unstable" when by all accounts Kim is the one who is closer to being actually insane. But MAD works even on him. It will work on Iran, only more so.
As far as I'm concerned, the question isn't "What would Israel do if Iran had nuclear weapons" but rather "What would *Iran* do if Iran had nuclear weapons." It's not an easy question to answer, and that's just a little bit unnerving.
That's nice, but I assure you that "What would Israel do?" is the question that concerns Iran. What would Iran do? That is a tough question, unless you're specifically meaning "Would they use their nuclear weapons in an unprovoked first strike?" That's a damn easy question to answer: No.
I still don't want them to have the bomb. But you don't have to have a silly view of their leaders as lunatics to think this.
Quadaffi took a different approach and has come out way, way ahead for it. He saw GWB invade Iraq and thought "that nutjob is serious!" Now the libyans have cancelled chemical and nuclear weapons research, stopped funding most terrorists, and are being let into the world community in spite of nutjob's rantings and ravings.
Yeah, to the extent that they ever had one. Not much of a sacrifice to make when you're a tiny insignificant country who completely lacks the leverage to hold off the international community while developing nukes. Quadaffi doesn't need or want nukes. So promising the U.S. that he wouldn't make them to earn our favor was pure win for him.
This is classic Libya/Quadaffi behavior. They aren't about big shows of military strength. They're about making allies and then quietly, subtly, stabbing them in the back. Thinking that this was somehow a big win for us is playing into Quadaffi's hands.
Forget about "fault". The blame game is stupid, and "logic" rarely has anything to do with it. At least you realize that it isn't a zero-sum game, but it's still useless. The only people who care about blame are people trying to pass off accountability for the consequences of their actions ("I did something stupid with disastrous consequences, but it's their fault"), and naive populaces who want everything to be "moral" in international politics and war.
In practical reality, Israel will be "forced" to attack Iran if they perceive Iran is too great a threat. "Forced" as in they will decide to do it for extremely pragmatic reasons of survival, "blame" be damned. They only care about looking moral to the extent that the international community and specifically the U.S. demands it. They just have a different viewpoint. They will attack Iran if they feel they must, not if we feel it can be morally justified.
Regardless of whose "fault" the outcome would be, Iran is playing a very dangerous game with Israel here. I'm sure they are aware, but they keep playing anyway.
And if you're Israel, apparently we pretend that we don't know that you're packing.
Which is a bit like pretending you don't know a cross-dresser is really a dude, even though "she" has a big conspicuous bulge running down "her" pant leg. You're mostly doing it out of politeness because they asked, not because you really think you're keeping the secret.
I remember a couple years ago, an Israeli official was talking about international politics, and he appeared to accidentally include Israel in a list of nuclear-armed nations. Which again is kinda like that cross-dresser absentmindedly mentioning that their wang is chafed from being taped to their leg. Embarrassing, but not exactly an "Ah-ha, I knew it!" moment which is why it didn't really have any impact.
But in all seriousness, I'm not sure how much longer this policy will last even though it doesn't really matter since everyone knows it anyway. The Israeli nukes are the biggest reason for, and deterrent against, Iran's nuclear ambition. Iran would love to have MAD politics on their side with Israel, but it's a dangerous gamble. While there was no credible reason to doubt that the U.S. or U.S.S.R. would have launched nukes in response to an attack, which is the foundation of MAD, Israel is the nation by far the most likely to launch a first strike because of the threat of the Iranian bomb. If and when Iran tests a bomb, I'm not sure what will happen, but I sure as hell expect Israel to respond more aggressively than the rest of the world did when NK tested theirs.
I was in an accident in it, a guy in a 1981 Toyota ran a red light and I t-boned him, going about 30mph. His frame was bent, axles were snapped, all side windows, the windshield, and rear window were broken. The frame damage snapped a few of his engine mounts, and also broke his radiator. His car was totaled. My car had the frame holding the headlight pushed back about half an inch, and scuffed the chrome bumper.
In other words, his car sacrificed itself to save both you and him.
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
If you could always count on crashing into a modern car that would take the damage for you, sure. But if the next red-running idiot took your viewpoint to heart and had an 'old tank', then the outcome of this 'minor' accident might not be as nice for you.
A tax break is NOT 'flat-out gift money.' It's keeping the money you've earned.
You should get a job and earn some money. You'll quickly understand the difference.
Please. I have a job. You should get a calculator.
If you pay $100 million in property taxes over 10 years, and the government gives you $50 million dollars over 10 years, explain to me how that is in any way different than giving you a tax break so you only pay $50 million in property taxes? In both cases, the government is short $50 million and the company is up $50 million.
It's only different to people for whom "taxes" is an emotional button.
But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.
Don't be daft.
You have to build the hydroelectric dams into boats.
Yeah but intel, etc didn't beg the government for a handout to do it...
Uh, yeah they fucking did!
Intel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks -- that's flat-out gift money, by the way -- to build their fabs in Oregon as opposed to someplace else. And they've done this multiple times. The total subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives they've received in their life time is huge.
But a loan is suddenly "begging the government for a handout" and something no other brand new technology had to do? Please! Let's say they never pay back a single dime -- then they're only equal to hundreds of other businesses.
And ant colony algorithms by themselves are just an obfuscated way of defining ad-hoc probabilistic algorithms.
It's not "obfuscated", they are explicitly in that class of algorithms.
In other words it's completely heuristic, there is no actual theory that justifies defining the algorithms in that particular way.
Yeah and there's no theory a priori justifying simulated annealing or genetic algorithms work in their particular way. But they work. Random heuristics work (and there is theory explaining why, in general, they do). Different heuristics have different properties that are beneficial in some circumstances. That's why there's more than one. That's why Monte Carlo simulations weren't the final word on random heuristics.
And what they do has precious little to do with actual ants.
As much as genetic algorithms have to do with biological evolution or simulated annealing has to do with cooling metal. As in... next to nothing in a literal sense, but quite a bit in an inspirational or metaphorical sense. Probabilistically following previous paths through the solution space, with those paths 'evaporating' over time unless reinforced, is a pretty good analogy for what ants really do, and a good hint as to the algorithms advantages -- it does a good job of finding and tracking changes in the solution space in dynamic situations.
Basically, "Oh it's just a heuristic and not literally like the inspiration its named after" is the worst way to dismiss an algorithm ever.
Though, on the other hand, why this is a good idea for network security, I don't know. Why would you want a bunch of agents to "swarm" a location where problems are found, rather than just, say, deleting any instances of virus/worms found, and closing any security holes found (or notifying the sysadmin so they can), is beyond me.
Unit tests are only as good as the programmers who make them. And if the programmer can think of a unit test... chances are that his code has already accounted for it; after all it's the same person, and he will be in the same mindset as he was when writing the code in the first place.
Uh-huh, and then a year later, he needs to add some new and complicated functionality, but needs the old functionality to work too. He thinks he's preserving the old logic, but it has been a while and he is not in the same mindset anymore, and prior to committing the change to the repository, he runs the unit tests and -- woops! -- it fails. He goes and fixes it, now both the new and old functionality tests pass, and he checks in working code.
And by "he" I mean "me".
Unit tests do wonders for myself and my group. We develop a large and constantly evolving code base. And we have a saying/rule-of-thumb: There are features that are automatically tested in our check-in procedure, and there are features that are broken. How do you determine what needs testing? Well what do you want to still work a year from now? There's your answer.
It's not appropriate for every situation, but it works for us.
Position does not exist, though. The way we interpret reality, where objects have positions in space, is not necessarily true and is probably not true. Position is simply a way of mapping the distance between objects, which again is simply a way of mapping the influence of gravity of two objects on each other. Recommended reading: "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Green.
It's hard to make a geometric argument about the universe without there being some notion of position, but yeah I think I agree with you. It's not just gravity that defines the relationship between objects but many forms of energy affect spacetime. I was going to suggest that an object "moving" is really it essentially staying still according to the spacetime geometry defined by its kinetic energy, but one that's going out on a big limb for me, and two that'll just confuse someone who is confused about basic physics principles like conservation of energy.
Sounds like a good book from the WP description.:)
If we go down this route, the precedent will be set that immunity from prosecution means nothing, that it can be revoked at any time.
You mean invalid retroactive statutory immunity.
* Anyone who is approached by a government agent to give testimony in exchange for immunity will have to wonder if that immunity will be taken away, leaving them open to prosecution all over again.
Except that the ability of prosecutors to grant immunity is already established law, so removing that ability would itself be ex post facto.
* If a governor or other executive grants clemency, there's nothing stopping further prosecution for the same offense. After all, if double jeopardy doesn't apply to this case, it wouldn't apply to those others.
This has nothing to do with double jeopardy. That's the subject of the OP's post, but this is not in any way, shape, or form, double jeopardy.
You can argue that this sets a precedent for things that have nothing to do with the actual precedent being set, but that doesn't convince me of anything because it's a weak and broken argument.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing art with your personal opinion of what constitutes good art.
Whoever told you in school that art is only art if it's good art, and that if you don't like the art you can claim that it isn't art, was wrong.
To me this seems like medical cynicism in the worst way.
Yeah, because it'd be way more optimistic to let her fucking die.
Sorry, but you and random board poster sound like the cynical ones, assuming that having installed this new device doctors will not monitor her and study the effects of her new heart. Or is that even the word for implying that we're better off letting people die until we can (somehow) answer these questions, rather than face the consequences of keeping them alive and learn from it?
Come on now, there's no point to having a term "art" when you use it as a synonym for "almost everything that anybody does." When you refuse to define art specifically you're really just saying "oh look, EVERYTHING is beautiful, ART is beautiful, thus EVERYTHING is ART!" It's a very feel-good definition... but what's the point of having the term in the first place?
But obviously not EVERYTHING is art by even this expansive definition. The point is that art is the things that we do that aren't what every other organism on earth does: Survive.
The specific examples McCloud uses of not-art, in reference to a prehistoric caveman, is the pursuit of food, the (physical) pursuit of a mate, and fleeing from a predator. When the caveman evades the predator, and rather than simply move on to the next survival-related task, he sticks his tongue out at it? That's art.
I tend to think of art as something that is purposefully created with the intent to express some aspect of the human experience.
Oh I agree, but we are expressive, emotive creatures, and there's precious little we do that doesn't express some aspect of the human experience. We've been expressing ourselves artistically for tens of thousands of years before there was a word for art, much less arguments about its definitions. It may not be a completely unique human characteristic, but it is certainly one of our defining ones.
I personally don't see a difference between expressing an aspect of the human experience, and deliberately setting out to make a statement about the human experience, other than one is more pretentious. If I paint a picture of two people with no explicit intention of saying anything about humanity, and yet nevertheless you can see an expression of love, or distance, or solitude, or whatever, how is that not art? You may not mean to say anything about the human experience when you give a flower to the girl you like, yet you are. The conversation we're having right now is art.
The essence of my friend's point about sex is that we, as social, emotional, expressive humans, can't make love without expressing your own humanity, without creating art. I disagree with him, I think there's fucking that's simply fucking as primordial and instinctual as that between lizards, but I see his point.
Yes, a pencil is beautiful and it allows us to do so very much... but was its creator's intent to move us? Not likely, they were probably just a factory worker (and even the designer of the first pencil probably was doing it for a functional purpose).
The factory worker was earning a paycheck, which is the modern-day equivalent of acquiring food and shelter. It's about survival. The same thing goes for the designer and his paycheck. Our day jobs aren't art; at least, not necessarily. When he chose an aesthetically pleasing color to paint the pencil? Art. The architect of the Empire State Building was earning a paycheck to ensure his survival, and building something completely practical, but also something beautiful and expressive. That's art.
Is it clear that not EVERYTHING is art? There is a distinction here, and it's an important one.
Similarly, the movie "Date Movie" is not something I would consider art... the creators intended it to be funny, and all I could feel is disgust. My emotion and the author's (probable) intention happened to be polar opposites.
This "definition" has issues... yes. How do we know the author's intended meaning? How close should an audience's reaction be to the intent?
And here I disagree with you very strongly. Date Movie is without a doubt art for any worthwhile definition... just crappy art. Who cares that your reaction was not what the creators intended? That doesn't turn art into not-art. That just means the creator failed. Bad art is still art. I categorically reject any definition of "art" where perceived quality of the art is the metric, as you al
Geeze. Next time, could you at least demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of simple issues with an inappropriate analogy? That would at least be in-character and potentially amusing.
Oh man that's awesome.
I can only hope you can gain abilities like Flagrant Elbow and Incredulous Expression at Foul Call.
If you see a painting and your only reaction is "oh, that's pretty" it's probably NOT art. If it takes your breath away and makes you say "WOW!" it is art.
No, that's the difference between good art and banal art. NOT the difference between art and not-art.
I heard a definition of art the other day that really seemd insightful (I studied art in college).
That's nice. Lots of people have studied art in college, and actually create art, and have a much broader and less elitist view of the definition of art.
Personally, I like Scott McCloud's definition of art: Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the base acts of survival and reproduction is art.
And a friend of mine, who is a professional artist, gets offended when I tell him that definition because in his view, the act of human reproduction is inseparable from art. His definition is even more expansive than McCloud's.
But hey, you studied art in school and thus can tell what is and isn't art based on how good it is. Tell me, by your own definition of art, have you ever created any? And does your answer imply that you are qualified to judge or not?
When I hear BEDAZZLER, I think of superheroes.
Haha. Just to be clear though -- "Dazzler" is the lame-ass mutant with the amazing ability to make shiny sparkles, while the "Bedazzler" is what her she used to make her disco ass even more lame.
So I guess that's the future of crowd control? The riot police will just read lists of ways in which our tax money is being spent. The real clincher is when they read off the cost of creating and providing copies to all law enforcement of a list of ways in which our tax money is being spent...
Dude, you're the one who's naked, hoping nobody notices you know nothing about computing or physics.
Launching first-strike attacks for the reasons of so-called self-defence is outrageous and immoral. You wait until someone has KILLED you, and tehn you get to kill them back. Not before.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not ("wait until someone has KILLED you" makes me suspect not, but who can be sure?) so this is a "Choose Your Own Adventure" response.
If not serious: Hahaha, good one! :)
If serious: Who gives a shit? Israel doesn't. They aren't going to wait to get nuked before acting if they feel they must. They are not joking about "Never Again". Your moral outrage changes not a single fact. Why can't people understand that?
Iran is not North Korea. North Korea has what I call a "sane government", in nuclear terms, by which I mean that they would in practice not risk starting a nuclear war, because they do not want to disrupt the status quo and risk losing what they have (particularly, they wouldn't want to risk losing power in their own country).
And you think the leaders of Iran would be willing to lose (not risk losing -- lose) The Islamic Republic? The most powerful nation in the Muslim world, the source of all their power and wealth and relevance?
But North Korea is not going to launch an unprovoked nuclear attack. There's essentially zero risk they'd do that. It would be completely out of character for them.
But starting unprovoked wars is in-character for Iran? Gee by my count NK is ahead on that count in the last century.
Iran is not North Korea. The government of Iran is, in a word, unstable. Khamenei would be dangerous enough, and then there's Ahmadinejad.
Khamenei is not insane. He is not stupid. He is not suicidal. He will not sacrifice everything he's worked for just to strike Israel. You don't go through all the trouble to build up your nation, acquire wealth and technology, and then go through the trouble to develop nuclear weapons just to throw it all away in a suicide attack. Suicide bombings are for the ignorant masses, not for the power brokers at the top of the food chain. Their vision for the future has Iran as a world power and the leader of the Muslim world. NOT as a glass parking lot. Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a sabre-rattling figure head. He says what he says because it plays well with the conservative base, not because he's a suicidal idiot.
They want nuclear weapons for the same reason everyone else wants nuclear weapons: To secure their country from attack, not to ensure that it is destroyed. They want to engage in MAD politics. They don't want to end up the next Iraq.
It's really funny hearing you call NK's government "sane" and Iran's "unstable" when by all accounts Kim is the one who is closer to being actually insane. But MAD works even on him. It will work on Iran, only more so.
As far as I'm concerned, the question isn't "What would Israel do if Iran had nuclear weapons" but rather "What would *Iran* do if Iran had nuclear weapons." It's not an easy question to answer, and that's just a little bit unnerving.
That's nice, but I assure you that "What would Israel do?" is the question that concerns Iran. What would Iran do? That is a tough question, unless you're specifically meaning "Would they use their nuclear weapons in an unprovoked first strike?" That's a damn easy question to answer: No.
I still don't want them to have the bomb. But you don't have to have a silly view of their leaders as lunatics to think this.
Quadaffi took a different approach and has come out way, way ahead for it. He saw GWB invade Iraq and thought "that nutjob is serious!" Now the libyans have cancelled chemical and nuclear weapons research, stopped funding most terrorists, and are being let into the world community in spite of nutjob's rantings and ravings.
Yeah, to the extent that they ever had one. Not much of a sacrifice to make when you're a tiny insignificant country who completely lacks the leverage to hold off the international community while developing nukes. Quadaffi doesn't need or want nukes. So promising the U.S. that he wouldn't make them to earn our favor was pure win for him.
This is classic Libya/Quadaffi behavior. They aren't about big shows of military strength. They're about making allies and then quietly, subtly, stabbing them in the back. Thinking that this was somehow a big win for us is playing into Quadaffi's hands.
Forget about "fault". The blame game is stupid, and "logic" rarely has anything to do with it. At least you realize that it isn't a zero-sum game, but it's still useless. The only people who care about blame are people trying to pass off accountability for the consequences of their actions ("I did something stupid with disastrous consequences, but it's their fault"), and naive populaces who want everything to be "moral" in international politics and war.
In practical reality, Israel will be "forced" to attack Iran if they perceive Iran is too great a threat. "Forced" as in they will decide to do it for extremely pragmatic reasons of survival, "blame" be damned. They only care about looking moral to the extent that the international community and specifically the U.S. demands it. They just have a different viewpoint. They will attack Iran if they feel they must, not if we feel it can be morally justified.
Regardless of whose "fault" the outcome would be, Iran is playing a very dangerous game with Israel here. I'm sure they are aware, but they keep playing anyway.
I feel a sweet thousand years of peace coming on!
And if you're Israel, apparently we pretend that we don't know that you're packing.
Which is a bit like pretending you don't know a cross-dresser is really a dude, even though "she" has a big conspicuous bulge running down "her" pant leg. You're mostly doing it out of politeness because they asked, not because you really think you're keeping the secret.
I remember a couple years ago, an Israeli official was talking about international politics, and he appeared to accidentally include Israel in a list of nuclear-armed nations. Which again is kinda like that cross-dresser absentmindedly mentioning that their wang is chafed from being taped to their leg. Embarrassing, but not exactly an "Ah-ha, I knew it!" moment which is why it didn't really have any impact.
But in all seriousness, I'm not sure how much longer this policy will last even though it doesn't really matter since everyone knows it anyway. The Israeli nukes are the biggest reason for, and deterrent against, Iran's nuclear ambition. Iran would love to have MAD politics on their side with Israel, but it's a dangerous gamble. While there was no credible reason to doubt that the U.S. or U.S.S.R. would have launched nukes in response to an attack, which is the foundation of MAD, Israel is the nation by far the most likely to launch a first strike because of the threat of the Iranian bomb. If and when Iran tests a bomb, I'm not sure what will happen, but I sure as hell expect Israel to respond more aggressively than the rest of the world did when NK tested theirs.
I was in an accident in it, a guy in a 1981 Toyota ran a red light and I t-boned him, going about 30mph. His frame was bent, axles were snapped, all side windows, the windshield, and rear window were broken. The frame damage snapped a few of his engine mounts, and also broke his radiator. His car was totaled. My car had the frame holding the headlight pushed back about half an inch, and scuffed the chrome bumper.
In other words, his car sacrificed itself to save both you and him.
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
If you could always count on crashing into a modern car that would take the damage for you, sure. But if the next red-running idiot took your viewpoint to heart and had an 'old tank', then the outcome of this 'minor' accident might not be as nice for you.
A tax break is NOT 'flat-out gift money.' It's keeping the money you've earned.
You should get a job and earn some money. You'll quickly understand the difference.
Please. I have a job. You should get a calculator.
If you pay $100 million in property taxes over 10 years, and the government gives you $50 million dollars over 10 years, explain to me how that is in any way different than giving you a tax break so you only pay $50 million in property taxes? In both cases, the government is short $50 million and the company is up $50 million.
It's only different to people for whom "taxes" is an emotional button.
But why can't we just build hydroelectric dams or fission reactors right into the car itself? Or better yet...wind powered cars. Just think how fast a wind turbine would spin on top of a car going 80MPH. The thing would practically power itself.
Don't be daft.
You have to build the hydroelectric dams into boats.
Every economist and expert they interviewed said the same thing-- none of these loans the government has made to boost the economy will be repaid.
I believe it, I just don't think that's such a terrible thing in this case. And it's 100% not new.
Loan is the new word for gift because the public has become touch about money.
You'd think in today's America that the word "loan" would automatically be associated with something that isn't going to be paid back :)
Yeah, I guarantee you nobody fabricated silicon ICs in their garage.
Look at the actual technology involved, and you'll see government subsidies -- not loans, subsidies -- are part and parcel of high-tech development.
Yeah but intel, etc didn't beg the government for a handout to do it...
Uh, yeah they fucking did!
Intel has received hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks -- that's flat-out gift money, by the way -- to build their fabs in Oregon as opposed to someplace else. And they've done this multiple times. The total subsidies, tax breaks, and other incentives they've received in their life time is huge.
But a loan is suddenly "begging the government for a handout" and something no other brand new technology had to do? Please! Let's say they never pay back a single dime -- then they're only equal to hundreds of other businesses.
And ant colony algorithms by themselves are just an obfuscated way of defining ad-hoc probabilistic algorithms.
It's not "obfuscated", they are explicitly in that class of algorithms.
In other words it's completely heuristic, there is no actual theory that justifies defining the algorithms in that particular way.
Yeah and there's no theory a priori justifying simulated annealing or genetic algorithms work in their particular way. But they work. Random heuristics work (and there is theory explaining why, in general, they do). Different heuristics have different properties that are beneficial in some circumstances. That's why there's more than one. That's why Monte Carlo simulations weren't the final word on random heuristics.
And what they do has precious little to do with actual ants.
As much as genetic algorithms have to do with biological evolution or simulated annealing has to do with cooling metal. As in... next to nothing in a literal sense, but quite a bit in an inspirational or metaphorical sense. Probabilistically following previous paths through the solution space, with those paths 'evaporating' over time unless reinforced, is a pretty good analogy for what ants really do, and a good hint as to the algorithms advantages -- it does a good job of finding and tracking changes in the solution space in dynamic situations.
Basically, "Oh it's just a heuristic and not literally like the inspiration its named after" is the worst way to dismiss an algorithm ever.
Though, on the other hand, why this is a good idea for network security, I don't know. Why would you want a bunch of agents to "swarm" a location where problems are found, rather than just, say, deleting any instances of virus/worms found, and closing any security holes found (or notifying the sysadmin so they can), is beyond me.
Unit tests are only as good as the programmers who make them. And if the programmer can think of a unit test... chances are that his code has already accounted for it; after all it's the same person, and he will be in the same mindset as he was when writing the code in the first place.
Uh-huh, and then a year later, he needs to add some new and complicated functionality, but needs the old functionality to work too. He thinks he's preserving the old logic, but it has been a while and he is not in the same mindset anymore, and prior to committing the change to the repository, he runs the unit tests and -- woops! -- it fails. He goes and fixes it, now both the new and old functionality tests pass, and he checks in working code.
And by "he" I mean "me".
Unit tests do wonders for myself and my group. We develop a large and constantly evolving code base. And we have a saying/rule-of-thumb: There are features that are automatically tested in our check-in procedure, and there are features that are broken. How do you determine what needs testing? Well what do you want to still work a year from now? There's your answer.
It's not appropriate for every situation, but it works for us.
Position does not exist, though. The way we interpret reality, where objects have positions in space, is not necessarily true and is probably not true. Position is simply a way of mapping the distance between objects, which again is simply a way of mapping the influence of gravity of two objects on each other. Recommended reading: "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Green.
It's hard to make a geometric argument about the universe without there being some notion of position, but yeah I think I agree with you. It's not just gravity that defines the relationship between objects but many forms of energy affect spacetime. I was going to suggest that an object "moving" is really it essentially staying still according to the spacetime geometry defined by its kinetic energy, but one that's going out on a big limb for me, and two that'll just confuse someone who is confused about basic physics principles like conservation of energy.
Sounds like a good book from the WP description. :)
If we go down this route, the precedent will be set that immunity from prosecution means nothing, that it can be revoked at any time.
You mean invalid retroactive statutory immunity.
* Anyone who is approached by a government agent to give testimony in exchange for immunity will have to wonder if that immunity will be taken away, leaving them open to prosecution all over again.
Except that the ability of prosecutors to grant immunity is already established law, so removing that ability would itself be ex post facto.
* If a governor or other executive grants clemency, there's nothing stopping further prosecution for the same offense. After all, if double jeopardy doesn't apply to this case, it wouldn't apply to those others.
This has nothing to do with double jeopardy. That's the subject of the OP's post, but this is not in any way, shape, or form, double jeopardy.
You can argue that this sets a precedent for things that have nothing to do with the actual precedent being set, but that doesn't convince me of anything because it's a weak and broken argument.