1) That we don't mind spending a lot of money on possibly unnecessary intervention missions.
AND
2) The intervention (e.g. rotation-timed ion engine push) needs to be enough of a correction to alter the trajectory by a lot more than the error bars on the trajectory estimate. So a lot of energy will need to be delivered. The math, anyone?
on trajectory estimates. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the true nature of the problem is that the further out we detect the object, the more uncertainty there would be about whether it will hit Earth or just be a close near miss. But it needs to be detected far out to have time to plan, build, execute the intervention.
What if we spend the 100s of billions of dollars needed to do an intervention like ion engine course correction, or painting, and then find out as it gets closer that, well, it looks like it most likely was going to miss "to the left" by a small margin, but we seem to be correcting it to the right just enough to actually hit Earth. Oops! Or we realize that it's going to miss, three quarters of the way through the 100s of billions project, and cancel it. Predictable result in human affairs: You never get the funding again, ever, even if it happens to be actually needed next time.
This is what is technically known as a conundrum.
And yes, blowing it up is beyond stupid in almost all cases. Just get more chunks hitting Earth. Even more destructive probably. That's only suitable for movie plots written, sorry to say, by artsies.
The net attraction in this case is toward the centre of mass of the cluster of broken up pieces. In other words, it would tend to re-assemble, but in fairness, that would take a long time if they were actually substantially separated.
It doesn't matter if one study made a statistics error. That's the process of science working as it should. And that overall process concludes that warming is happening. The overall mechanisms, including ocean thermal cycles, are well understood in their fundamentals. Superkendall's cherry picking and misleading connotations are just destructive rhetoric.
You're trying to pretend you don't understand that ocean water cycles from shallow to deep and back, aren't you. It's intriguing: You are a sabotaging dumbass, who pretends not to be a dumbass, who pretends to be a dumbass sometimes when it suits.
Tesla gave away its EV tech patents royalty-free, to try to speed up the overall transition to EVs by letting other competing companies use their tech specs for free.
that sub-project would be done as a crypto-funded "open sourced" effort by persons unknown concerned only with the spread of information and liberty etc etc.
Just -balloon-drone-drop millions of smartphones into rural china where the smartphones talk to the new high-speed satellite Internet that's going up now. That way the resistance can communicate, or somewhat riskily watch unlimited Youtube.
the Internet in their own special ways nowadays. Maybe it will fragment into 30 different country-nets instead of 2.
All the more reason why we need a distributed encrypted file-fragment layer that completely dissociates physical location from content, and a more secure and performant version of onion-routing for retrieval and coalescing of the information for the end user.
It will probably have to be buried, steganography-style, in thousands of seemingly innocent image or video serving sites world wide. I wonder where we could find those?...
Would be to have the search censorship mode for China, but with the following "features":
1) No disclosure to Chinese authorities about who is searching for what. 2) A full public list visible on the web everywhere in the world (or everywhere except China) of all of the search terms and logic used to do the censoring (transparent censoring?? haha) 3) A monthly count disclosed on the non-China website of what percentage of searches were censored.
and maintain it's all just biased opinion and faith, please feel free to jump off the nearest cliff. I caution you against this. My unsubstantiated faith-based opinion (just as good or bad as anyone else's about anything) is that gravity will accelerate you rapidly toward the surface below and that you will die from the sudden deceleration after that. But what do I know?
Seriously though, it's getting to where I refuse to have an extended conversation about a serious topic with anyone who cannot demonstrate basic epistemic soundness in their thinking. It's just a waste of words and time.
Well, back in the day, and I do mean the day, I was coding in Common Lisp on a Lisp Machine, which was a computer which ran no other language than lisp. So the only non-Lisp thing on the machine would have been parts of the Lisp interpreter/jit-compiler/garbage collector, process scheduler, which were written in micro-code.
So all memory access to non-trusted programmers was only allocated to the programmer as cells with safe pointers to other cells, or was numbers and safe, sized strings, and maybe a high-level typed and bounds-checked numeric array here or there etc allocated as part of the core lisp implementation. Programmers could not cast to or from pointers, nor know where the pointers, which were managed by the language environment, pointed to.
So it was basically impossible for any regular application programmer to cause any memory mis-use error.
You could still do stupid things, like infinite or memory-intensive recursion, but that would always break in a nice and controlled way.
Who could have imagined 100 years ago that I could get so many questions answered by talking to a small glass and metal device in my hand. All these fairly insightful on average answers made on the fly for me out of fluctuating electrical currents in crystals.
When the number of neighbour-interacting elements gets huge, and the layers of abstraction start to pile up, wonders are possible. Like our minds, and future artificial intelligences.
I for one welcome our new architectural overlords, that is, whoever can make an efficient multi-core, multi-cache,.... multi-everything architecture, perhaps that only shares over high-level interfaces over fibre connections, or whatever.
And I guess those high-level physical interfaces will have to include timing randomization "chaff".
Slashdot Mirror
1) That we don't mind spending a lot of money on possibly unnecessary intervention missions.
AND
2) The intervention (e.g. rotation-timed ion engine push) needs to be enough of a correction to alter the trajectory by a lot more than the error bars on the trajectory estimate. So a lot of energy will need to be delivered. The math, anyone?
on trajectory estimates.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the true nature of the problem is that the further out we detect the object, the more uncertainty there would be about whether it will hit Earth or just be a close near miss.
But it needs to be detected far out to have time to plan, build, execute the intervention.
What if we spend the 100s of billions of dollars needed to do an intervention like ion engine course correction, or painting, and then find out as it gets closer that, well, it looks like it most likely was going to miss "to the left" by a small margin, but we seem to be correcting it to the right just enough to actually hit Earth. Oops!
Or we realize that it's going to miss, three quarters of the way through the 100s of billions project, and cancel it. Predictable result in human affairs: You never get the funding again, ever, even if it happens to be actually needed next time.
This is what is technically known as a conundrum.
And yes, blowing it up is beyond stupid in almost all cases. Just get more chunks hitting Earth. Even more destructive probably. That's only suitable for movie plots written, sorry to say, by artsies.
The net attraction in this case is toward the centre of mass of the cluster of broken up pieces.
In other words, it would tend to re-assemble, but in fairness, that would take a long time if they were actually substantially separated.
It doesn't matter if one study made a statistics error. That's the process of science working as it should. And that overall process concludes that warming is happening. The overall mechanisms, including ocean thermal cycles, are well understood in their fundamentals. Superkendall's cherry picking and misleading connotations are just destructive rhetoric.
You're trying to pretend you don't understand that ocean water cycles from shallow to deep and back, aren't you.
It's intriguing: You are a sabotaging dumbass, who pretends not to be a dumbass, who pretends to be a dumbass sometimes when it suits.
https://www.businessinsider.com/oceans-absorb-carbon-emissions-climate-change-2018-10
https://www.businessinsider.com/oceans-warming-faster-than-we-thought-2019-1
to mod up your own posts?
That IS informative.
Tesla gave away its EV tech patents royalty-free, to try to speed up the overall transition to EVs by letting other competing companies use their tech specs for free.
just to be fish, for their own sake.
that sub-project would be done as a crypto-funded "open sourced" effort by persons unknown concerned only with the spread of information and liberty etc etc.
Just -balloon-drone-drop millions of smartphones into rural china where the smartphones talk to the new high-speed satellite Internet that's going up now. That way the resistance can communicate, or somewhat riskily watch unlimited Youtube.
You would think that 1.386 billion freely expressed views might just kind of cancel out.
Or I suppose, fragment into two polarized camps that don't listen to each other.
the Internet in their own special ways nowadays.
...
Maybe it will fragment into 30 different country-nets instead of 2.
All the more reason why we need a distributed encrypted file-fragment layer that completely dissociates physical location from content, and a more secure and performant version of onion-routing for retrieval and coalescing of the information for the end user.
It will probably have to be buried, steganography-style, in thousands of seemingly innocent image or video serving sites world wide. I wonder where we could find those?
Would be to have the search censorship mode for China, but with the following "features":
1) No disclosure to Chinese authorities about who is searching for what.
2) A full public list visible on the web everywhere in the world (or everywhere except China) of all of the search terms and logic used to do the censoring (transparent censoring?? haha)
3) A monthly count disclosed on the non-China website of what percentage of searches were censored.
Or something like that.
and maintain it's all just biased opinion and faith,
please feel free to jump off the nearest cliff.
I caution you against this.
My unsubstantiated faith-based opinion (just as good or bad as anyone else's about anything)
is that gravity will accelerate you rapidly toward the surface below and that you will die from the sudden deceleration after that.
But what do I know?
Seriously though, it's getting to where I refuse to have an extended conversation about a serious topic with anyone who cannot demonstrate basic epistemic soundness in their thinking. It's just a waste of words and time.
+1 philosophical humour
The list within, last it appearing, a reason there is.
It is to laugh!!
Well, back in the day, and I do mean the day, I was coding in Common Lisp on a Lisp Machine, which was a computer which ran no other language than lisp. So the only non-Lisp thing on the machine would have been parts of the Lisp interpreter/jit-compiler/garbage collector, process scheduler, which were written in micro-code.
So all memory access to non-trusted programmers was only allocated to the programmer as cells with safe pointers to other cells, or was numbers and safe, sized strings, and maybe a high-level typed and bounds-checked numeric array here or there etc allocated as part of the core lisp implementation. Programmers could not cast to or from pointers, nor know where the pointers, which were managed by the language environment, pointed to.
So it was basically impossible for any regular application programmer to cause any memory mis-use error.
You could still do stupid things, like infinite or memory-intensive recursion, but that would always break in a nice and controlled way.
Ah, those were the days.
what wonders emerge out of organized complexity,
Who could have imagined 100 years ago that I could get so many questions answered by talking to a small glass and metal device in my hand. All these fairly insightful on average answers made on the fly for me out of fluctuating electrical currents in crystals.
When the number of neighbour-interacting elements gets huge, and the layers of abstraction start to pile up, wonders are possible. Like our minds, and future artificial intelligences.
The technology and the way it works, exchanging privacy for free services, came first.
The law come very recently.
I guess if the law is fully implemented, it will kill the "you are the product" free internet services business model.
because presumably, a security principal trusts itself not to spy on itself.
or more precisely, per security principal.
I for one welcome our new architectural overlords, that is, whoever can make an efficient multi-core, multi-cache,.... multi-everything architecture, perhaps that only shares over high-level interfaces over fibre connections, or whatever.
And I guess those high-level physical interfaces will have to include timing randomization "chaff".
back then.
You could easily make your own "hyperdocuments".
It's a bit sad that people only do that on Facebook and other walled gardens today.
It is common for companies that made several years of losses to not pay tax until those losses are zeroed from current profits.
Maybe nothing to see here?
No. Not everyone needs a unique verifiable id. Only if you want to publish software to users of an attempting-to-be-secure platform.