I think I read before that BBC policy is to only capitalize the first letter of acronyms, as distinct in this context from initialisms, which are when you abbreviate something with the first letter of every word but don't pronounce the result as if a word e.g. Cern vs EPA.
But... But... Those were government armed goons! Only governments are capable of producing armed goons that want you to bribe them not to hurt you! I believe this because my entire philosophy collapses if I don't!
Simple life lives here on Earth in the driest of dry places.
All we know for sure is that life can adapt to environments with minimal water. What's unclear is how much water is needed for life to arise and gain enough of a foothold that it would be able to spread to the variety of environments we find life in on earth. Earth had the advantage of gigantic oceans, so there's a lot of space for different specific environmental conditions that might be suitable for abiogenesis.
I just don't think we know about the subject to say how likely it is. If, however, life did arise (or arrive) then it surely would have been able to adapt to low water environments.
You're not giving the seals enough credit. They're entirely capable of following orders, and if they were ordered to capture him they would have done so. But anyone who can see through the finest dusting of bullshit knows the orders were to kill OBL.
Or he was ordered to either capture or kill, but definitely make sure one or the other happens (because ordering only capture and taking kill off the table would be insanely stupid), and so by killing him he was technically following orders and also doing what he and millions of other service members have wanted to do for over ten years.
But I guess believing that the Seals were given leeway to make a judgment call, and made one even if it's not the one you liked or would have made, is giving them too much credit.
And then they later admitted that that was bullshit and that he was unarmed, along with some bs handwaving about how he "didn't surrender immediately".
Yeah, what they meant is that there is no fucking way a Navy Seal with Osama bin Laden in his sights is going to refrain from shooting him in the face. Not if there's even the slightest resistance, or the slightest chance the mission could go sour -- and they'd already lost a helicopter -- and he somehow gets away without being filled with lead. Not if he gave him the tiniest excuse. Fuck, probably not even then.
Navy Seals are not police officers. Nor were they asked to be in this circumstance. Expecting soldiers to act like police officers is part of why Iraq 2 was so fucked, and that's when the people they were dealing with were regular civilians. When it's fucking OBL, expecting a Seal to just read him his rights and take him away instead of making him God's problem is simply unrealistic.
So, someone made up some BS about him resisting, but that's because the truth -- "WTF did you expect to happen?" -- doesn't sound as nice. But I'm sure it was expected this would probably happen, and was considered an acceptable outcome.
More likely they can just dedicate hundreds of hours worth of computing to brute-forcing a single piece of intelligence
More likely hundreds of years worth or more... I personally consume 20 CPU-years on a regular basis for things of no national security importance whatsoever.
Remember, kids, encryption strength is exponential with respect to key length! Make 'em nice and long if you don't want the NSA to read 'em!
It doesn't really have to be that much more advanced than what we have (although undoubtedly they are so far on the cutting edge of capability that they are probably in danger of falling off)
Frankly it won't be any more advanced than what "we" have. They might ask for a tweak or two to whatever vendor (e.g. or even i.e. Cray) they buy from, but it's not going to be significantly different than their commercially-available cutting edge.
Remember, the government doesn't make much of anything in the way of technology. The military, who undoubtedly has stuff "we" don't, still has that stuff designed and manufactured by private contractors -- Boeing, Rayethon, etc. Some of these are almost exclusively defense contractors so sure you pretty much aren't going to see what the military has elsewhere.
In silicon the big manufacturers sell primarily to non-government agencies, and they're selling their best stuff not holding back so the NSA can get it before anyone else when there's way more money in competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The government might have some fancy research, but to supply the NSA with what it needs requires large-scale manufacturing from industry.
Note that the Second Amendment provides no exclusions regarding what arms the citizens are allowed to own and carry
The First Amendment provides no exceptions of any kind to free speech, but nevertheless we accept that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on certain things and then we just spend the rest of time arguing about what is "reasonable".
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander, revealing military secrets, etc. These are considered reasonable restrictions on the right of free speech.
Same with the 2nd Amendment. There may be a lot more argument over where 'reasonable' is, and I think it's too restrictive right now, but the idea that it guarantees the right to private armies and nuclear stockpiles is a non-starter, sorry.
P.S. For defending ourselves from an oppressive government, it's going to be less about the quality of hardware citizens possess at the beginning (though it helps if guns are plentiful, and they are, and AR-15s are legal and can be converted to full-auto easily), but rather how much we can steal or have stolen by defecting military members. And also not about hardware in general or armies but guerrilla tactics.
this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that, if it wasn't you wouldn't be paid as much.
How can you accept hazards you don't know exist?
Every footballer knows that they could suffer major injuries during a game that could end their career or outright cripple them. They have accepted that.
How many knew that the many minor impacts that occur throughout what would naively be called an injury-free career would result in them suffering long-term brain damage? How many had coaches and trainers tell them that hard hits which didn't obviously injure them were insignificant and they should keep playing?
How could they have even known this when medical science didn't? Just assume?
Lastly, the idea that sports players are paid based on the amount of physical danger involved, rather than say the popularity of the sport, their team, and their personal ability as it relates to how much money the sport takes in, is stupid. The idea that this hazard pay had already incorporated the previously unknown risks covered in this study even more so.
As an individual, you want to be judged by your actions as an individual. Please extend the same courtesy to Muslims individually, which means refraining from labeling them collectively as aggressive nut cases bent on world destruction.
But as an individual I also want to be lazy and take easy mental shortcuts to understanding complex situations. How can I do both?!
It's actually a residual force that originates with the strong interaction between quarks, which is a force that reaches a strength of about 10,000N at a limiting distance of roughly the size of a hadron, and then remains constant regardless of how much farther apart the coupled quarks move
If I understood the portion of Feynman's QED lecture on more modern physics, this is because unlike the chargeless photon, the gluon actually has color charge and thus binds to the very force it is mediating, right?
The hydrogen on the outer layers of this sun would still have more or less the same orbital velocity as the rest of the sun.
No it wouldn't, because the gravity gradient is very steep, and the star large. So the closer part of the star would like to have a substantially higher orbital velocity than the center of mass of the star, and would tend to want to be stripped off. A more massive (but equal size) star would hold onto its outer layers for longer. But once it comes too close, then the black hole's gravity (gradient) is simply too great and the star is ripped apart. Nothing needs to disturb it except said gravity.
Giant stars like this are layered, with the heaviest elements that are undergoing fusion in the center and lighter ones as you go outward. So the black hole ripped away the hydrogen because that was what was the farthest out and thus bound the weakest to the star.
I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
Like I said, I understand that -- as much as I can, not being you and not going through it, of course.
But to compare to something less emotional, I also understand why people think they're safer in a car they are driving versus a plane someone else is piloting. It makes perfect psychological sense why someone would be convinced airplanes are death traps and they are much better in a car. However advising people not to fly in airplanes because they'll be safer driving across the country in a car does not make sense. That is factually wrong. It's bad advice. A national movement of people promoting this viewpoint would be bad for public safety.
This is why despite respecting your feelings, when you say "if you like 1 in 66 odds of autism (implied: as a consequence of vaccines, much lower or no odds for the non-vaccinated) then go ahead " then it's no longer just feelings but bad, dangerous FUD and it must be countered before it becomes a public health risk (more than it already has).
But back to your feelings, maybe there's something you can help me understand which I never have before: Why does it seem like so much of the late-night wondering and second-guessing is focused around vaccines? Why is this quest for a reason for this to have happened -- perfectly understandable -- focused like a laser on something that there is essentially no chance is actually responsible because it goes against everything that is understood about the disease? That had the only thing actually implicating it as the cause shown to be an outright fraud?
I ask because I imagine that if I were in your shoes, I would want to find the reason, but I would want to find the real reason. I would want to find the real reason because if you find the real reason you could perhaps find real help. Or at least understand what happened, that it was indeed something I did, or if it was always out of my control and simply fate. So I'd like to think that I might have suspected vaccines, but once every piece of evidence showed that this isn't it, I'd have moved on to something else that might be right. Like, say, the science in this article.
It was a paraphrase; hence the lack of quote marks. I was expressing my own understanding of what it means when God, the very personification of perfection, calls something "very good". But the KJV does mention "without blemish" several times. Would not low-functioning autism be considered a "blemish" on man?
Let's not go projecting our human notions of what's "good" and what's a "blemish" are on God, okay? It just smacks of hubris.
BTW, this is still true if we replace God with "nature".
Not saying it IS the vaccines, but as a father of an autistic boy, i sometimes think.
Right. No offense, because I understand the emotional feeling of lacking control, but what you could have done is increased your child's chance of contracting a potentially dangerous disease with no effect whatsoever on their autism condition.
Autism is a developmental disorder. It happens over time, as the brain develops. A child who at first seems normal but then takes a turn, regressing, is perfectly normal progression of the disease. It is impossible for the changes to have occurred between when they first received vaccines and when you first noticed symptoms.
You say "if you like those odds" as if vaccines have anything to do with the odds. Those odds exist independent of vaccination, so liking the odds should have nothing to do with the decision to vaccinate. If you like the odds of your child getting sick with a preventable disease for the completely illusory feeling of having done something about autism, then by all means, skip vaccinations.
This desire to blame something tangible, to try to find something we could have done differently, is an emotional reaction and not a sound basis for medical advice. It's perfectly understandable, but understanding it is exactly why we shouldn't listen to it. I'm sorry about your kid, but there's nothing you could have done and not getting vaccines would have only been for the worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh it makes a certain kind of sense, but someone below said they do PC as Pc which is even dumber.
Have you heard the good news of our Super-Symmetric Savior?
I think I read before that BBC policy is to only capitalize the first letter of acronyms, as distinct in this context from initialisms, which are when you abbreviate something with the first letter of every word but don't pronounce the result as if a word e.g. Cern vs EPA.
But... But... Those were government armed goons! Only governments are capable of producing armed goons that want you to bribe them not to hurt you! I believe this because my entire philosophy collapses if I don't!
Simple life lives here on Earth in the driest of dry places.
All we know for sure is that life can adapt to environments with minimal water. What's unclear is how much water is needed for life to arise and gain enough of a foothold that it would be able to spread to the variety of environments we find life in on earth. Earth had the advantage of gigantic oceans, so there's a lot of space for different specific environmental conditions that might be suitable for abiogenesis.
I just don't think we know about the subject to say how likely it is. If, however, life did arise (or arrive) then it surely would have been able to adapt to low water environments.
You're not giving the seals enough credit. They're entirely capable of following orders, and if they were ordered to capture him they would have done so. But anyone who can see through the finest dusting of bullshit knows the orders were to kill OBL.
Or he was ordered to either capture or kill, but definitely make sure one or the other happens (because ordering only capture and taking kill off the table would be insanely stupid), and so by killing him he was technically following orders and also doing what he and millions of other service members have wanted to do for over ten years.
But I guess believing that the Seals were given leeway to make a judgment call, and made one even if it's not the one you liked or would have made, is giving them too much credit.
And then they later admitted that that was bullshit and that he was unarmed, along with some bs handwaving about how he "didn't surrender immediately".
Yeah, what they meant is that there is no fucking way a Navy Seal with Osama bin Laden in his sights is going to refrain from shooting him in the face. Not if there's even the slightest resistance, or the slightest chance the mission could go sour -- and they'd already lost a helicopter -- and he somehow gets away without being filled with lead. Not if he gave him the tiniest excuse. Fuck, probably not even then.
Navy Seals are not police officers. Nor were they asked to be in this circumstance. Expecting soldiers to act like police officers is part of why Iraq 2 was so fucked, and that's when the people they were dealing with were regular civilians. When it's fucking OBL, expecting a Seal to just read him his rights and take him away instead of making him God's problem is simply unrealistic.
So, someone made up some BS about him resisting, but that's because the truth -- "WTF did you expect to happen?" -- doesn't sound as nice. But I'm sure it was expected this would probably happen, and was considered an acceptable outcome.
More likely they can just dedicate hundreds of hours worth of computing to brute-forcing a single piece of intelligence
More likely hundreds of years worth or more... I personally consume 20 CPU-years on a regular basis for things of no national security importance whatsoever.
Remember, kids, encryption strength is exponential with respect to key length! Make 'em nice and long if you don't want the NSA to read 'em!
It doesn't really have to be that much more advanced than what we have (although undoubtedly they are so far on the cutting edge of capability that they are probably in danger of falling off)
Frankly it won't be any more advanced than what "we" have. They might ask for a tweak or two to whatever vendor (e.g. or even i.e. Cray) they buy from, but it's not going to be significantly different than their commercially-available cutting edge.
Remember, the government doesn't make much of anything in the way of technology. The military, who undoubtedly has stuff "we" don't, still has that stuff designed and manufactured by private contractors -- Boeing, Rayethon, etc. Some of these are almost exclusively defense contractors so sure you pretty much aren't going to see what the military has elsewhere.
In silicon the big manufacturers sell primarily to non-government agencies, and they're selling their best stuff not holding back so the NSA can get it before anyone else when there's way more money in competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The government might have some fancy research, but to supply the NSA with what it needs requires large-scale manufacturing from industry.
Note that the Second Amendment provides no exclusions regarding what arms the citizens are allowed to own and carry
The First Amendment provides no exceptions of any kind to free speech, but nevertheless we accept that there are reasonable limits that can be placed on certain things and then we just spend the rest of time arguing about what is "reasonable".
Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, libel and slander, revealing military secrets, etc. These are considered reasonable restrictions on the right of free speech.
Same with the 2nd Amendment. There may be a lot more argument over where 'reasonable' is, and I think it's too restrictive right now, but the idea that it guarantees the right to private armies and nuclear stockpiles is a non-starter, sorry.
P.S. For defending ourselves from an oppressive government, it's going to be less about the quality of hardware citizens possess at the beginning (though it helps if guns are plentiful, and they are, and AR-15s are legal and can be converted to full-auto easily), but rather how much we can steal or have stolen by defecting military members. And also not about hardware in general or armies but guerrilla tactics.
this is a job hazard and you have have to accept that, if it wasn't you wouldn't be paid as much.
How can you accept hazards you don't know exist?
Every footballer knows that they could suffer major injuries during a game that could end their career or outright cripple them. They have accepted that.
How many knew that the many minor impacts that occur throughout what would naively be called an injury-free career would result in them suffering long-term brain damage? How many had coaches and trainers tell them that hard hits which didn't obviously injure them were insignificant and they should keep playing?
How could they have even known this when medical science didn't? Just assume?
Lastly, the idea that sports players are paid based on the amount of physical danger involved, rather than say the popularity of the sport, their team, and their personal ability as it relates to how much money the sport takes in, is stupid. The idea that this hazard pay had already incorporated the previously unknown risks covered in this study even more so.
As an individual, you want to be judged by your actions as an individual. Please extend the same courtesy to Muslims individually, which means refraining from labeling them collectively as aggressive nut cases bent on world destruction.
But as an individual I also want to be lazy and take easy mental shortcuts to understanding complex situations. How can I do both?!
It's actually a residual force that originates with the strong interaction between quarks, which is a force that reaches a strength of about 10,000N at a limiting distance of roughly the size of a hadron, and then remains constant regardless of how much farther apart the coupled quarks move
If I understood the portion of Feynman's QED lecture on more modern physics, this is because unlike the chargeless photon, the gluon actually has color charge and thus binds to the very force it is mediating, right?
Someone mod up the AC, please.
In this case the most likely culprit is charged particles from the event horizon stripping the sun of its outer layers.
Try tidal forces.
The hydrogen on the outer layers of this sun would still have more or less the same orbital velocity as the rest of the sun.
No it wouldn't, because the gravity gradient is very steep, and the star large. So the closer part of the star would like to have a substantially higher orbital velocity than the center of mass of the star, and would tend to want to be stripped off. A more massive (but equal size) star would hold onto its outer layers for longer. But once it comes too close, then the black hole's gravity (gradient) is simply too great and the star is ripped apart. Nothing needs to disturb it except said gravity.
Giant stars like this are layered, with the heaviest elements that are undergoing fusion in the center and lighter ones as you go outward. So the black hole ripped away the hydrogen because that was what was the farthest out and thus bound the weakest to the star.
The laser's so bright, I gotta wear shades.
We're not on speaking terms since he ate my last dead cat in a bag.
Well if you don't ever let the physical cat out of the bag, then you'll just end up with a bag with a dead cat in it. And that's no fun for anyone.
Today was No Meds Day and nobody told me?!
Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it.
I can believe that, but I don't believe for a second that they didn't have the concept of jealousy.
I am a professor of logic now so that may have something to do with the zealotry in my responses here, but all I'm saying is that simply changing your initial statement from "there are references to monogamy in parts of the bible that are more than a few hundred years old." to "there are references to monogamy in the dead sea scrolls." ends all discussion on the topic because you've provided hard evidence to bolster your argument.
Statements are not hard evidence, Dr. Logic.
Like I said, I understand that -- as much as I can, not being you and not going through it, of course.
But to compare to something less emotional, I also understand why people think they're safer in a car they are driving versus a plane someone else is piloting. It makes perfect psychological sense why someone would be convinced airplanes are death traps and they are much better in a car. However advising people not to fly in airplanes because they'll be safer driving across the country in a car does not make sense. That is factually wrong. It's bad advice. A national movement of people promoting this viewpoint would be bad for public safety.
This is why despite respecting your feelings, when you say "if you like 1 in 66 odds of autism (implied: as a consequence of vaccines, much lower or no odds for the non-vaccinated) then go ahead " then it's no longer just feelings but bad, dangerous FUD and it must be countered before it becomes a public health risk (more than it already has).
But back to your feelings, maybe there's something you can help me understand which I never have before: Why does it seem like so much of the late-night wondering and second-guessing is focused around vaccines? Why is this quest for a reason for this to have happened -- perfectly understandable -- focused like a laser on something that there is essentially no chance is actually responsible because it goes against everything that is understood about the disease? That had the only thing actually implicating it as the cause shown to be an outright fraud?
I ask because I imagine that if I were in your shoes, I would want to find the reason, but I would want to find the real reason. I would want to find the real reason because if you find the real reason you could perhaps find real help. Or at least understand what happened, that it was indeed something I did, or if it was always out of my control and simply fate. So I'd like to think that I might have suspected vaccines, but once every piece of evidence showed that this isn't it, I'd have moved on to something else that might be right. Like, say, the science in this article.
Why isn't this so? I honestly don't get it.
It was a paraphrase; hence the lack of quote marks. I was expressing my own understanding of what it means when God, the very personification of perfection, calls something "very good". But the KJV does mention "without blemish" several times. Would not low-functioning autism be considered a "blemish" on man?
Let's not go projecting our human notions of what's "good" and what's a "blemish" are on God, okay? It just smacks of hubris.
BTW, this is still true if we replace God with "nature".
Not saying it IS the vaccines, but as a father of an autistic boy, i sometimes think.
Right. No offense, because I understand the emotional feeling of lacking control, but what you could have done is increased your child's chance of contracting a potentially dangerous disease with no effect whatsoever on their autism condition.
Autism is a developmental disorder. It happens over time, as the brain develops. A child who at first seems normal but then takes a turn, regressing, is perfectly normal progression of the disease. It is impossible for the changes to have occurred between when they first received vaccines and when you first noticed symptoms.
You say "if you like those odds" as if vaccines have anything to do with the odds. Those odds exist independent of vaccination, so liking the odds should have nothing to do with the decision to vaccinate. If you like the odds of your child getting sick with a preventable disease for the completely illusory feeling of having done something about autism, then by all means, skip vaccinations.
This desire to blame something tangible, to try to find something we could have done differently, is an emotional reaction and not a sound basis for medical advice. It's perfectly understandable, but understanding it is exactly why we shouldn't listen to it. I'm sorry about your kid, but there's nothing you could have done and not getting vaccines would have only been for the worse.