You have a choice. You can have time travel with causality in your own universe, or you can have free will, but not both.
You use "free will" when only "non-predestination" would be correct. They are different.
Regardless of someone else's ability to completely predict your actions, they are still YOUR actions.
You simply can't travel into your own past without "altering" it. To be present, you have to displace air molecules.
That's true. If you really could travel back in time, you'd be equally likely to "mess up the present" by waving a newspaper as by assasinating the president. The "chaos butterfly" teaches us that a tiny air movement can have ramifications across the globe, but films (even one named after that butterfly) ignore this, allowing only major, obvious changes to do anything.
All popular time-travel (and parellel-universe) fiction that I've seen uses the fallacies of "sticky causality" or "clumpy causality" to create appealing stories. It's hard to make a good plotline without characters having the chance to make meaningful choices, and that means they need some way to predict the outcome of their actions.
sticky causality: There is no butterfly effect. No change makes any difference, unless it exceeds a certain threshold of magnitude. Marty may delay his parent's courtship by days or weeks, but as long as it eventually happens, everything's the same
clumpy causality: Changes don't propagate out in an ever-expanding chain reaction. Instead, they stay related to one particular topic. Travelling back to assasinate Winston Churchill may create a 2004 Britain ruled by the Nazi Empire, but the people you meet on return will have the same names and faces as when you left (even though the tremendous social disruption should've totally re-arranged marriages and births).
The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is the best example I've seen of an intelligent film about the juggernaut of causality,
If Matrix Reloaded had a good screenwriter, it could've really mastered the topic (and been an entirely different movie- but the setting of a global VR network is the perfect backdrop to explore predestination)
Re:Rule of thumb: "The Book is Better"
on
A Sound of Thunder
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hollywood takes a book and totally screws it over. And all too often that's what they do
The opposite happens too. "Forrest Gump" was a decent movie from a bad book. (At least, if you use popularity as a measure of quality)
Arguably, "Total Recall" was better than "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and "Blade Runner" beat "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
I think the "Jurassic Park" movie was better too- but only because the purity of admiring CGI creature effects beats endless mumbo-jumbo on chaos theory and software tampering.
think of it like a page table or something, you run word.exe..
Have you used Microsoft Office lately? It already attempts this, and it's poorly implemented. You frequently get a messaged "Office setup needs to install new components" when you click on a certain feature.
It frequently gets broken so you have to go through the install progressbar each time you restart the program. (this was on slashdot 10 days ago)
If you didn't, I think you're at least right in calling Star Wars populist
Star Wars is NOT populist. How could anyone be so wrong?
Star Wars is elitist. It describes a universe inhabited by virtuous royalty, where a few special people ("Jedi") have the inborn power to shape interstellar empires. It's all about genes and destiny above effort and self-determination.
Star Trek- now there's a populist space-opera franchise.
Maybe compiling source for every little update is fine for a hobbyist running Debian Unstable,
I don't see how a Debian user would do that. Maybe you meant to say Gentoo. But Debian provides binary packages by default (although each is paired with its source code on the package server).
Is it really possible to instruct Debian to compile all updates locally? You'd need a decent quantity of custom scripting to get it going.
First, it is a protocol, which means that you need to be running a daemon (possible security issue)
There is an rsyncd available, but that's just a rarely-used alternative to running it over rsh/ssh. The situation is similar to CVS: there is a natively daemon version, but smart people just run it via ssh.
Although even if rsync was only a daemon, that'd still be backwards: the client of a protocol never needs to run a daemon to download!
I have yet to see Franken sit down and cogently discuss any of his wild invective about Bush,
He's published multiple books detailing all his accusations. Visit your local library! If you really want cogent discussion, written words (or at least untelevised debate) is the only way to go.
Democracy is a luxury the people of China just can't afford.
You seem to be implying that democracy is opposed to socialism, but that's not really true. One is a political system, and one is economic.
Major choices: Politics: Democracy or tyranny Economics: Capitalism or socialism
It's entirely possible for a democratic nation to vote for a socialist economy. To a minor extent, some European nations are doing this. (Note that nothing is pure, and continuums between both extremes exist).
Nazi Germany was a capitalist tyranny. The USSR was a heavily (but not completely) socialist tyranny. Modern China is becoming less socialist and more capitalist over time, but it has remained a tyranny, which is the reason for it's bad reputation.
Not that the US actually gave anyone much help in creating nuclear weapons (despite the assistance given to the US in terms of radar, aeronautical & code-breaking technology...)
Some members of the Manhattan Project were British scientists loaned to an ally, who returned home after V-J day having gained much practical experience.
Re:No boom, you will just scorch the paint
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if one acquired a suitable transport aircraft (surplus Herc?)
Since the article was posted by Roland Piquallie, I understand that you could be reluctant to click on it and give him hits.
But even the summary mentioned it was "500 tons". That's 22 times what a C-130 Hercules can carry (or maybe just 14 times, if you exceed the safety rating). However, the C-130 is fairly small as cargo planes go (it's only big in comparison to other planes that can operate without paved runways).
The largest, the C-5 Galaxy, can hold 6 times as much as the C-130, which is still not even 20% the reactor's weight. (And the C-5 is unable to open the doors while flying, so you'd be on a kamikaze strike)
Re:No boom, you will just scorch the paint
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
The vessels are also tested against train wrecks, airplane crashes, etc.
No. The nuclear containers that have survived such high profile stress-tests are not portable, and by their nature never could be. Their strength comes from size and weight. No way to get around that. It's not some "technology"- just more and more armor.
Re:No boom, you will just scorch the paint
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
moving a 500 ton piece of equipment "rather freely."
The sentence referred to the ability of the squad itself to move around. But they don't want the whole reactor- only a few 100 pounds of nuclear fuel will be enough.
Aside from the fact that they have GPS transmitters/receivers keeping track of their location and a alarm system that detects tampering.
Irrelevant. These people have guns and can threaten the authorized operators. They can own ("pwn") the site for days if necessary.
They still need to deliver it, and bringing radioactive material into the country is by no means easily done.
It's quite easy. Wilderness borders, such as between the USA and Canada, are not hard to penetrate. Expecting border guards to catch 100 pound weapons is not realistic.
Bringing it directly into a port city by ship works too. Cargos aren't inspected today, although they will be soon- but even when that happens, the inspectors won't visit cargo vessels until they're already inside the port.
Relative to other portable WMD, nuclear devices are easier to detect, but they're all pretty low.
I think we all learned that there are much better ways that terrorists have found to kill much larger number of people with say airplanes for example.
Well, no. Airplanes are not an efficient terrorist attack, if you measure by how many people are killed. Compare Sept 11 with the Oklahoma City bombing. A simple truck bomb had more victims per attacker- and the attacker walked away, potentially able to strike again later.
On the other hand, a well-planned dirty bomb attack on New York could achieve 10,000 deaths from just one attacker, who's left town before the explosions start.
However, it is true that dirty bombs are less efficient terrorist weapons than nerve gas, which a good chemist can produce in bulk from two trips to Walmart. Although these small reactors will be relatively more vulnerable than existing power plants, the risk of attacking them outweighs any additional firepower they could provide.
Re:This is not really such a good idea..
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
The army soon learned that their light Sherman tanks were no match for Nazi Panthers and Tigers. Hundreds of their "Ronson-lighters"
First, the hypothetical "lighter force" of FCS would use unmanned, remote-controlled tanks. So if they suffer a high rate of destruction, it's no big deal. To the USA, lives are much more precious than equipment.
Second, the USA has attack aircraft that can easily target and destroy any heavy armored vehicle long before the FCS arrives on the ground. "70 ton tanks" against the F-15E equals "slow, fat targets".
Third, even back in WWII, the Sherman wasn't that bad. (The USA eventually won, after all) Yes, it was weaker than a German Panzer, but it was smaller and faster too. The Allies were conducting an amphibious invasion (on the Western Front), and didn't have the luxury of driving tanks from the factory to the battlefield. All their equipment had to fit on ships or planes. So because the tanks were lighter, they could have more of them. And they could move faster, because not only were the tanks quicker, but they had better mileage, improving logistics for the whole army. The USA decided that their tanks were meant for destroying enemy infantry, not tanks (for which aircraft or artillery could serve)
Note that the Russians on the Eastern front didn't have the same amphibious restriction on the size of tanks, so they built them to be even larger than Germany's. Yet they suffered many more casualties- not only amoung infantry, but tanks too (a single German tank, commanded by Michael Wittman, destroyed 70 Russian tanks!). Maybe a greater number of individually weaker tanks would've been better for them...?
SIPRNET computers are not connected to any other network, and are generally behind locked, limited-access doors.
The main goal of the doors around SIPRNET sites, and the guards who man them, is to prevent classified data from leaving. Their primary focus is to no writable media leaves a SIPRNET computer. Users often bring CD-Rs or floppies containing data, with the expectation that they'll be left behind in a locked wastebasket (for eventual secure incineration).
There are rules that require incoming files to be virus-scanned, but that's not enforced nearly as strenuously as stopping any data from walking out.
Re:This is not really such a good idea..
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I am sure neural poison is both cheaper to make and has more impressive long-term health effects.
No. Any chemical or biological agent can be protected against by a simple rubber suit with SCUBA breathing. Radioactive particles are emitting, well, radiation that can penetrate any armor. The site of a dirty-bomb attack will take years of careful, dangerous work to clean up. But a poison will degrade in at most months.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I think the problem is that people are more averse to lots os small problems than a single large disaster.
You seem to have a backwards idea of what "averse" means. Your first and third sentences directly contradict each other.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
I can buy a 100w light globe for 50c (AUD), yet an energy saver one will cost me $12.
A lot of that is markup, because the vendor expects wealthy liberals to dominate the buying population.
If you get out of Home Depot and head into your city's "China Trade Center" (if you can find it), unbranded energy-saving spiral bulbs are $0.99 each. Major stores don't stock these yet, because until there's public awareness of the lower possible price, they're happy to reap fat margins.
Re:I've got mine on pre-order.
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
There's no useful radiation coming out of it, nor does it physically cause anything to move.
If your building is heated, then any CPUs will help increase the temperature, reducing the load on the furnace.
Re:No boom, you will just scorch the paint
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hard up for what, seeing paint scorched?
Wrong. The concern isn't that attackers will toss a bomb at the reactor, but that they will seize the reactor, dismantle it, and use the radioactive fuel (which is otherwise difficult to obtain) as the payload for a dirty bomb.
Current nuclear reactors are unlikely to be seized by a handful of armed men, because they are either large complexes in civilized nations, or onboard military ships. The project will encourage the placement of reactors in poorer, less controlled countries, where a squad of militants can move rather freely.
The wings were necessary in order to meet this cross-range requirement.
They may say so, but they're trying to rationalize a justification for their emotions. The real reason is "No bucks without Buck Rogers". The USAF just loves piloting, and they wanted a chance to do more of it.
AC: You cannot become an astronaut without becoming a pilot first.
A lie. Plenty of the 7-person teams on space shuttles have been non-pilots.
AC: who are recruited from the cream of the armed services
Another lie. Plenty of astronauts are civilians. Some are even recruited from the cream of the elementary school teachers.
AC: This is a reasonable, empirically sound way of getting the finest personnel available for spaceflight.
But even if it were true, WHY? Physical toughness isn't even really needed. (Yes, a moderate level of stamina is required, but surviving 10 gravities of thrust isn't actually too hard)
You don't "pilot" spacecraft. Nobody needs to steer it. The launch is automated, and moves so quickly that a human controller would just be in the way. The landing can be automated too, although it's better to just do a completely unguided parachute landing.
Slashdot Mirror
You use "free will" when only "non-predestination" would be correct. They are different.
Regardless of someone else's ability to completely predict your actions, they are still YOUR actions.
You simply can't travel into your own past without "altering" it. To be present, you have to displace air molecules.
That's true. If you really could travel back in time, you'd be equally likely to "mess up the present" by waving a newspaper as by assasinating the president. The "chaos butterfly" teaches us that a tiny air movement can have ramifications across the globe, but films (even one named after that butterfly) ignore this, allowing only major, obvious changes to do anything.
All popular time-travel (and parellel-universe) fiction that I've seen uses the fallacies of "sticky causality" or "clumpy causality" to create appealing stories. It's hard to make a good plotline without characters having the chance to make meaningful choices, and that means they need some way to predict the outcome of their actions.
The only film I can remember that does use either fallacy is "12 Monkeys" (prehaps also Terminator 1). It supports a fully predestined theory of time-travel, where the only "changes" the traveller makes are exactly what was required to reach the future he came from.
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead is the best example I've seen of an intelligent film about the juggernaut of causality,
If Matrix Reloaded had a good screenwriter, it could've really mastered the topic (and been an entirely different movie- but the setting of a global VR network is the perfect backdrop to explore predestination)
Hollywood takes a book and totally screws it over. And all too often that's what they do
The opposite happens too. "Forrest Gump" was a decent movie from a bad book. (At least, if you use popularity as a measure of quality)
Arguably, "Total Recall" was better than "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and "Blade Runner" beat "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?".
I think the "Jurassic Park" movie was better too- but only because the purity of admiring CGI creature effects beats endless mumbo-jumbo on chaos theory and software tampering.
think of it like a page table or something, you run word.exe..
Have you used Microsoft Office lately? It already attempts this, and it's poorly implemented. You frequently get a messaged "Office setup needs to install new components" when you click on a certain feature.
It frequently gets broken so you have to go through the install progressbar each time you restart the program. (this was on slashdot 10 days ago)
If you didn't, I think you're at least right in calling Star Wars populist
Star Wars is NOT populist. How could anyone be so wrong?
Star Wars is elitist. It describes a universe inhabited by virtuous royalty, where a few special people ("Jedi") have the inborn power to shape interstellar empires. It's all about genes and destiny above effort and self-determination.
Star Trek- now there's a populist space-opera franchise.
I find it probable that stormtrooper armor is designed to protect against slug-throwing weapons
Similarly, a red Star Trek uniform makes you immune to bullets (but nothing else)
blasters seem to put holes right through most metal structures.
Trash receptacles excepted.
Maybe compiling source for every little update is fine for a hobbyist running Debian Unstable,
I don't see how a Debian user would do that. Maybe you meant to say Gentoo. But Debian provides binary packages by default (although each is paired with its source code on the package server).
Is it really possible to instruct Debian to compile all updates locally? You'd need a decent quantity of custom scripting to get it going.
First, it is a protocol, which means that you need to be running a daemon (possible security issue)
There is an rsyncd available, but that's just a rarely-used alternative to running it over rsh/ssh. The situation is similar to CVS: there is a natively daemon version, but smart people just run it via ssh.
Although even if rsync was only a daemon, that'd still be backwards: the client of a protocol never needs to run a daemon to download!
I have yet to see Franken sit down and cogently discuss any of his wild invective about Bush,
He's published multiple books detailing all his accusations. Visit your local library! If you really want cogent discussion, written words (or at least untelevised debate) is the only way to go.
they simultaneously blame the "left wingers" for both advocating AND rejecting nuclear power.
Did you notice yesterday that Mrs. Bush simultaneously praised her husband for funding AND suppressing stem-cell research?
Democracy is a luxury the people of China just can't afford.
You seem to be implying that democracy is opposed to socialism, but that's not really true. One is a political system, and one is economic.
Major choices:
Politics: Democracy or tyranny
Economics: Capitalism or socialism
It's entirely possible for a democratic nation to vote for a socialist economy. To a minor extent, some European nations are doing this. (Note that nothing is pure, and continuums between both extremes exist).
Nazi Germany was a capitalist tyranny. The USSR was a heavily (but not completely) socialist tyranny. Modern China is becoming less socialist and more capitalist over time, but it has remained a tyranny, which is the reason for it's bad reputation.
Not that the US actually gave anyone much help in creating nuclear weapons (despite the assistance given to the US in terms of radar, aeronautical & code-breaking technology...)
Some members of the Manhattan Project were British scientists loaned to an ally, who returned home after V-J day having gained much practical experience.
I wonder if one acquired a suitable transport aircraft (surplus Herc?)
Since the article was posted by Roland Piquallie, I understand that you could be reluctant to click on it and give him hits.
But even the summary mentioned it was "500 tons". That's 22 times what a C-130 Hercules can carry (or maybe just 14 times, if you exceed the safety rating). However, the C-130 is fairly small as cargo planes go (it's only big in comparison to other planes that can operate without paved runways).
The largest, the C-5 Galaxy, can hold 6 times as much as the C-130, which is still not even 20% the reactor's weight. (And the C-5 is unable to open the doors while flying, so you'd be on a kamikaze strike)
The vessels are also tested against train wrecks, airplane crashes, etc.
No. The nuclear containers that have survived such high profile stress-tests are not portable, and by their nature never could be. Their strength comes from size and weight. No way to get around that. It's not some "technology"- just more and more armor.
moving a 500 ton piece of equipment "rather freely."
The sentence referred to the ability of the squad itself to move around. But they don't want the whole reactor- only a few 100 pounds of nuclear fuel will be enough.
Aside from the fact that they have GPS transmitters/receivers keeping track of their location and a alarm system that detects tampering.
Irrelevant. These people have guns and can threaten the authorized operators. They can own ("pwn") the site for days if necessary.
They still need to deliver it, and bringing radioactive material into the country is by no means easily done.
It's quite easy. Wilderness borders, such as between the USA and Canada, are not hard to penetrate. Expecting border guards to catch 100 pound weapons is not realistic.
Bringing it directly into a port city by ship works too. Cargos aren't inspected today, although they will be soon- but even when that happens, the inspectors won't visit cargo vessels until they're already inside the port.
Relative to other portable WMD, nuclear devices are easier to detect, but they're all pretty low.
I think we all learned that there are much better ways that terrorists have found to kill much larger number of people with say airplanes for example.
Well, no. Airplanes are not an efficient terrorist attack, if you measure by how many people are killed. Compare Sept 11 with the Oklahoma City bombing. A simple truck bomb had more victims per attacker- and the attacker walked away, potentially able to strike again later.
On the other hand, a well-planned dirty bomb attack on New York could achieve 10,000 deaths from just one attacker, who's left town before the explosions start.
However, it is true that dirty bombs are less efficient terrorist weapons than nerve gas, which a good chemist can produce in bulk from two trips to Walmart. Although these small reactors will be relatively more vulnerable than existing power plants, the risk of attacking them outweighs any additional firepower they could provide.
I call FUD on that one-
Fear is what terrorism is all about!
The army soon learned that their light Sherman tanks were no match for Nazi Panthers and Tigers. Hundreds of their "Ronson-lighters"
First, the hypothetical "lighter force" of FCS would use unmanned, remote-controlled tanks. So if they suffer a high rate of destruction, it's no big deal. To the USA, lives are much more precious than equipment.
Second, the USA has attack aircraft that can easily target and destroy any heavy armored vehicle long before the FCS arrives on the ground. "70 ton tanks" against the F-15E equals "slow, fat targets".
Third, even back in WWII, the Sherman wasn't that bad. (The USA eventually won, after all) Yes, it was weaker than a German Panzer, but it was smaller and faster too. The Allies were conducting an amphibious invasion (on the Western Front), and didn't have the luxury of driving tanks from the factory to the battlefield. All their equipment had to fit on ships or planes. So because the tanks were lighter, they could have more of them. And they could move faster, because not only were the tanks quicker, but they had better mileage, improving logistics for the whole army. The USA decided that their tanks were meant for destroying enemy infantry, not tanks (for which aircraft or artillery could serve)
Note that the Russians on the Eastern front didn't have the same amphibious restriction on the size of tanks, so they built them to be even larger than Germany's. Yet they suffered many more casualties- not only amoung infantry, but tanks too (a single German tank, commanded by Michael Wittman, destroyed 70 Russian tanks!). Maybe a greater number of individually weaker tanks would've been better for them...?
SIPRNET computers are not connected to any other network, and are generally behind locked, limited-access doors.
The main goal of the doors around SIPRNET sites, and the guards who man them, is to prevent classified data from leaving. Their primary focus is to no writable media leaves a SIPRNET computer. Users often bring CD-Rs or floppies containing data, with the expectation that they'll be left behind in a locked wastebasket (for eventual secure incineration).
There are rules that require incoming files to be virus-scanned, but that's not enforced nearly as strenuously as stopping any data from walking out.
I am sure neural poison is both cheaper to make and has more impressive long-term health effects.
No. Any chemical or biological agent can be protected against by a simple rubber suit with SCUBA breathing. Radioactive particles are emitting, well, radiation that can penetrate any armor. The site of a dirty-bomb attack will take years of careful, dangerous work to clean up. But a poison will degrade in at most months.
I think the problem is that people are more averse to lots os small problems than a single large disaster.
You seem to have a backwards idea of what "averse" means. Your first and third sentences directly contradict each other.
I can buy a 100w light globe for 50c (AUD), yet an energy saver one will cost me $12.
A lot of that is markup, because the vendor expects wealthy liberals to dominate the buying population.
If you get out of Home Depot and head into your city's "China Trade Center" (if you can find it), unbranded energy-saving spiral bulbs are $0.99 each. Major stores don't stock these yet, because until there's public awareness of the lower possible price, they're happy to reap fat margins.
There's no useful radiation coming out of it, nor does it physically cause anything to move.
If your building is heated, then any CPUs will help increase the temperature, reducing the load on the furnace.
Hard up for what, seeing paint scorched?
Wrong. The concern isn't that attackers will toss a bomb at the reactor, but that they will seize the reactor, dismantle it, and use the radioactive fuel (which is otherwise difficult to obtain) as the payload for a dirty bomb.
Current nuclear reactors are unlikely to be seized by a handful of armed men, because they are either large complexes in civilized nations, or onboard military ships. The project will encourage the placement of reactors in poorer, less controlled countries, where a squad of militants can move rather freely.
The wings were necessary in order to meet this cross-range requirement.
They may say so, but they're trying to rationalize a justification for their emotions. The real reason is "No bucks without Buck Rogers". The USAF just loves piloting, and they wanted a chance to do more of it.
AC: You cannot become an astronaut without becoming a pilot first.
A lie. Plenty of the 7-person teams on space shuttles have been non-pilots.
AC: who are recruited from the cream of the armed services
Another lie. Plenty of astronauts are civilians. Some are even recruited from the cream of the elementary school teachers.
AC: This is a reasonable, empirically sound way of getting the finest personnel available for spaceflight.
But even if it were true, WHY? Physical toughness isn't even really needed. (Yes, a moderate level of stamina is required, but surviving 10 gravities of thrust isn't actually too hard)
You don't "pilot" spacecraft. Nobody needs to steer it. The launch is automated, and moves so quickly that a human controller would just be in the way. The landing can be automated too, although it's better to just do a completely unguided parachute landing.
There is no need for piloting skills in space.
I'm not 'of' the environment,
Oh. My mistake. So you're neither male nor female, then? Sorry I didn't imagine that possibility.