Indeed, I am sure that many, many posts of many self-admittedly brilliant minds with exactly the same observation are sitting in thirty-year-old alt.sex.binaries.lotr.eagles.plothole usenet archives, each one basking brightly in the author's originality, wit, and critical thinking skills.
Actually, the most fun I've seen in parallels to LOTR is not in science, but in Shakespeare. (Tolkien was an English Prof, remember.) First, the "Crack of Doom" is a phrase which comes from the Scottish Play. Second, two of Sauron's great captains fell in ways in was prophesied MacBeth should fall: The Lord of the Nazgul was struck down by no man of woman born; and Saruman was struck down when the forest came to Isengard.
And what do you think you are? The more I learn about machine learning, the more impressed I am with natural neural networks and the incredible sophistication of the layered methods which are being applied to achieve complex behaviors.
Exactly.
Besides, the first entity that gets a functioning superhuman brain, if it has enough lead time over its competitors and is able to gain enough data and indoctrinate goals, is very likely to win. This applies in every field of human endeavor. Think of the enormous transaction and synchronization costs we have to deal with in the incredibly inefficient networking between your brain and mine, for example. Now network a hundred of those brains together with those costs a few million times smaller...
It won't happen all at once like that until it does, of course.
I know a lot more about WW2 than probably 98% of Americans, and "12/7" doesn't immediately mean Pearl Harbor to me. "December 7" does, of course. But 12/7 wasn't picked symbolically for a number to impact the psyche like 9/11, and that's not how people usually referred to it.
These threats shouldn't result in punishment more serious than flunking a semester anyway--they should result in securing the building and having the kid checked out for psych problems unless there is evidence of attempting to illegally purchase firearms, etc... A threat isn't the thing itself.
All this particular interest group is doing by going against good science is making is less likely they'll get what they want.
No. The demographic of this interest group is ridiculously powerful in Hawaii. See, e.g., Hawaiian Homelands. White people are in the minority, as are science types.
The Catholic Church managed to go against science without a problem for more than a millennium.
The problem is that names are included at all. Papers should be evaluated *without* knowing who wrote them. Otherwise you have bias creeping into what should be a scientific review and editorial process.
You don't prove your point by mentioning people who have steroid rage. Normal people can absolutely get their anger out by spending some time with a punching bag.
As I recall from one of my psych classes a few years back, the evidence is that catharsis does not, in fact, help people. However, Wikipedia says there's some debate. Personally I suspect this is BS and that social media intensifies stratification and group formation while discouraging meaningful intergroup norm exchange.
And there are tons of other costs. What is the difference in cost to manufacture? Amortized over the mileage travelled? Are you driving your own car (and avoiding the need for a driver) and are you including the bus driver's carbon usage as a carbon cost?
Aerospace is a huge hole in our plans for a carbon less energy future; you can replace fossil fuels with ships (nuclear) and transit (electric cars and trains) but I haven't seen any technology (real or imagined) that can do the job in aerospace. Short haul trucking is another hole that's going to be hard to fill, long haul can conceivably be replaced with trains but you're still going to need something to move goods from the rail network to their final destination.
Not to mention tanks.
And the combination of domestic heating and electricity demand. Politicians are afraid of building nuclear plants, and green energy projects aren't getting us anywhere near where we need to be.
Value is based on profit. Profit is disclosed each quarter. This tweet didn't cost $8B; the title is grossly misleading. The quarterly earnings cost $8B in valuation, and the tweet just pushed the loss up an hour or so.
... sufficient insurance for commercial purposes...
Actually, that may give a competitive advantage to cab companies in some cases. For example, in NYC historically the cab companies put each cab into its own tiny company in order to limit liability, and then buy the minimum insurance allowed by state law, which is a lot smaller than a million bucks.
That said, I'm not sure what the threshold is these days. It seems it would be pretty easy for a cab to do a couple of million in damage in NYC.
God save us from educational reform. We have had 30 years of it and things only get worse and worse. Less relevant course work, too many tests, talent driven out of the system, destruction of decent school lunches, no PE, etc. All that is left is sports and tests. The last 30 years has been an exercise in how to destroy an educational system.
There's a story that Mayor Koch in New York had an old Lady stop him and say, "Mayor, make it how it used to be." And he said, "Lady, it was never like that."
Educational reform is the only thing we have to try to make the system better, and it's not good enough right now. Some of the time--maybe even most of the time--it is going to be the wrong reform. And then you try something else.
School was terribly done 30 years ago. It's terrible today. Not only because we keep getting the material wrong, but because we haven't BEGUN to figure out the right social dynamics yet, at least as a society.
A teacher *cannot* have absolute control of their classroom, or else abusive teachers will abuse the kids and hurt their development. A teacher *needs* very strong support from their administration and the ability to have an effective response to troublemaking, or they will be unable to run an effective classroom. An administration needs to be afraid enough of being sued that they don't do anything crazy, but willing enough to be sued that they can fail a child, discipline a child, or even put a child to work mopping a floor--so long as they do it respectfully and in order to further the child's social and academic development. A school should be able to assign chores just like a parent can. But you need good oversight, so kids aren't picked on. A teacher who picks on kids all the time needs to be fired. The *Union* should work to fire them. The union should care enough about the kids and their own profession that it wants to keep bad teachers from working.
Your fifth point is notably in error. The issue is one of changing norms; you can change the norms of behavior that people expect of themselves and others in part by changing how they think about other people. That's why you dehumanize the enemy in war with names like "Charlie," for example. That means changing the internal narrative that people use when they think about the person or group of people they are interacting with. Popular entertainment--be it television, video gaming, or via other media--is one way to begin influencing the narrative of a large number of people.
Certainly, there is an economic cost to the individual company to optimizing its narrative in part along the dimension of positive norm-building in those circumstances where it is not in keeping with optimization for marketing to the company's target demographic. However, there is also a cost to society to leaving the norms that this fails to challenge in place. That latter cost may result in many wasted lives, in substantial domestic violence, and in similar things generally considered bad today's standards. When the cost to society exceeds the gain to the company, society has a role in encouraging the company to behave differently. The only legitimate reasons we don't mandate that the company behave differently are that it is very hard to measure the cost to society and that the potential for misuse of the power of censorship is significant enough that we don't give that power to government except in the most extreme situations.
1- there is also a agreement to not put weapons on space 2- Money! you would need a HUGE amount of fuel to put something that big on space, even if piece by piece... probably too expensive for any country. 3- physic laws:
if you fired those guns on space, you would start to move away from the target... so on each fire round you would need to correct the velocity and position, quickly wasting all your fuel
So yes, damn details!!:)
I like to think they would be smart enough to fire the shells by dropping them...
In the alternative, you could just fire the guns on both ends of the ship simultaneously...
No, no, they should be looking over fake plans to raise thebattleship Yamato and put her into space. Go big, or go home.
Or... maybe those are the real plans?
It had 18" guns, the biggest ones ever built for sea and in violation of international arms agreements. If you fire them from space, they're space guns!
If a corporation is causing two "little" earthquakes a day, it is still a cause for concern and a moratorium on the activity that causes the earthquakes until reasonable policy choices can be made.
Then again, if these are already areas of 'elevated seismic hazard', it's quite possible that inducing the plates to slip now will prevent an even larger quake in the future.
Geoengineering is a new science with great unknowns; we should not approach it without caution, nor should we assume anything we do is bad.
Then again, if these are already areas of 'elevated seismic hazard', it's quite possible that inducing the plates to slip now will prevent an even larger quake in the future.
Geoengineering is a new science with great unknowns; we should not approach it without caution, nor should we assume anything we do is bad.
No.
Niagra falls pushes back a lot of rock each year. Maybe it keeps more rock from breaking off all at once! Yes, but odds are if you had no Niagra falls the rock would stay for a much longer time.
Non system libraries are statically linked.a files in IOS. Apple insists on this, although I'm not entirely sure why. I guess its to avoid DLL hell.
Well, to properly do this, requires a way to manage libraries separately from apps. And that rapidly becomes a usability nightmare, as well as, ironically, a security nightmare.
What happens when an update comes out? Do you keep both versions? What happens if an app is incompatible with the new version? What if the old version is insecure, and the new version incompatible? Do you go for insecure-but-working, or broken-but-secure? What if the developer isn't around anymore to fix it?
Then there's security - if you come up with a way to do this, how do you isolate the data from one another? How do you keep the library (which has access to everyone's data) from accessing and passing around the information? Perhaps a malicious update goes and accesses everyone's information then dumps it to another app for uploading?
Effectively, the only way is to statically link the library into each app - this way each app contains a library that works and is tested. But it also means developers are responsible for maintaining their apps.
All great questions, but static linking isn't an answer, it's giving up on having an answer.
Does Apple have to sign and push the 3rd party shared library itself? That would be the only safe solution I can think of, because otherwise you're giving apps the ability to modify each others' code, which is clearly a recipe for potential abuse. Apple can't realistically take the responsibility for monitoring, compiling, and pushing updates for third-party libraries, which would be nearly impossible to do in practice. Alternatively, there's no way Apple could allow the apps themselves to update the shared libraries, because then a single app could break or even hack thousands of other apps with a bad update. Delegating that authority to a third-party (like the library developer) is equally problematic, because there's no way for them to properly test any changes before pushing them, and the potential for abuse still exists.
DLLs make a lot of sense for shared systems libraries, but as far as third-party libraries, they'd be a practical nightmare.
Not at all; a developer is making a decision to trust a third-party when he incorporates the third-party library into his app. So long as you allow a developer to flag his app as needing to rely on an older version, the benefits would significantly outweigh the risks. Notably, even *IF* one party were to use a library to hack all those apps, you could still fix it in one place rather than having a vulnerability in every app for a year.
You would have to make strict standards for what behavior libraries can change to fall under this shared model, to minimize the likelihood of breaking any programs, but it's a LOT better to default to "secure even though 1 in 100 apps that both needs an old library and has a developer who failed to flag it as needing an old library has problems until fixed" than it is to "1500 apps insecure, with no timetable for securing."
Non system libraries are statically linked.a files in IOS. Apple insists on this, although I'm not entirely sure why. I guess its to avoid DLL hell.
It saves them money; they don't have to spend the time developing a robust system for DLL registration, signing, updating, etc...
But it is still a really bad engineering decision, because it means what could have been patched once has to push security updates in *fifteen hundred statically linked applications*. It's their marketplace and their walled garden; they should be subsidizing the expenses which make it more secure for everybody and reduce total developer time for publishers. Push the update to developers a little in advance in case it breaks an app, then auto-push the update either to everyone or with a held-back copy for any apps that specifically flag no-security-update.
It's not rocket science, it's just good engineering.
Slashdot Mirror
Today? That one's been around forever.
Indeed, I am sure that many, many posts of many self-admittedly brilliant minds with exactly the same observation are sitting in thirty-year-old alt.sex.binaries.lotr.eagles.plothole usenet archives, each one basking brightly in the author's originality, wit, and critical thinking skills.
Was sorry to see point hat go.
http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/v...
Actually, the most fun I've seen in parallels to LOTR is not in science, but in Shakespeare. (Tolkien was an English Prof, remember.) First, the "Crack of Doom" is a phrase which comes from the Scottish Play. Second, two of Sauron's great captains fell in ways in was prophesied MacBeth should fall: The Lord of the Nazgul was struck down by no man of woman born; and Saruman was struck down when the forest came to Isengard.
Except for those pesky Eagles, who fix all the problems, except for that one huge Ring problem wherein no one bothers to ask for their help.
I'm a huge fan of the books, but did see a meme earlier today pointing out that great big plot hole. :)
Short version: why didn't they just ask the Eagles to fly them to Mordor? Or over the mountains?
And what do you think you are? The more I learn about machine learning, the more impressed I am with natural neural networks and the incredible sophistication of the layered methods which are being applied to achieve complex behaviors.
Exactly.
Besides, the first entity that gets a functioning superhuman brain, if it has enough lead time over its competitors and is able to gain enough data and indoctrinate goals, is very likely to win. This applies in every field of human endeavor. Think of the enormous transaction and synchronization costs we have to deal with in the incredibly inefficient networking between your brain and mine, for example. Now network a hundred of those brains together with those costs a few million times smaller...
It won't happen all at once like that until it does, of course.
I know a lot more about WW2 than probably 98% of Americans, and "12/7" doesn't immediately mean Pearl Harbor to me. "December 7" does, of course. But 12/7 wasn't picked symbolically for a number to impact the psyche like 9/11, and that's not how people usually referred to it.
These threats shouldn't result in punishment more serious than flunking a semester anyway--they should result in securing the building and having the kid checked out for psych problems unless there is evidence of attempting to illegally purchase firearms, etc... A threat isn't the thing itself.
All this particular interest group is doing by going against good science is making is less likely they'll get what they want.
No. The demographic of this interest group is ridiculously powerful in Hawaii. See, e.g., Hawaiian Homelands. White people are in the minority, as are science types.
The Catholic Church managed to go against science without a problem for more than a millennium.
The problem is that names are included at all. Papers should be evaluated *without* knowing who wrote them. Otherwise you have bias creeping into what should be a scientific review and editorial process.
You don't prove your point by mentioning people who have steroid rage. Normal people can absolutely get their anger out by spending some time with a punching bag.
As I recall from one of my psych classes a few years back, the evidence is that catharsis does not, in fact, help people. However, Wikipedia says there's some debate. Personally I suspect this is BS and that social media intensifies stratification and group formation while discouraging meaningful intergroup norm exchange.
And there are tons of other costs. What is the difference in cost to manufacture? Amortized over the mileage travelled? Are you driving your own car (and avoiding the need for a driver) and are you including the bus driver's carbon usage as a carbon cost?
Aerospace is a huge hole in our plans for a carbon less energy future; you can replace fossil fuels with ships (nuclear) and transit (electric cars and trains) but I haven't seen any technology (real or imagined) that can do the job in aerospace. Short haul trucking is another hole that's going to be hard to fill, long haul can conceivably be replaced with trains but you're still going to need something to move goods from the rail network to their final destination.
Not to mention tanks.
And the combination of domestic heating and electricity demand. Politicians are afraid of building nuclear plants, and green energy projects aren't getting us anywhere near where we need to be.
Value is entirely based on perception.
Value is based on profit. Profit is disclosed each quarter. This tweet didn't cost $8B; the title is grossly misleading. The quarterly earnings cost $8B in valuation, and the tweet just pushed the loss up an hour or so.
Ah! Yes, that makes sense if it's only catching the page by your having entered the password.
Why would you update your password because of a *failed* phishing attempt?
... sufficient insurance for commercial purposes...
Actually, that may give a competitive advantage to cab companies in some cases. For example, in NYC historically the cab companies put each cab into its own tiny company in order to limit liability, and then buy the minimum insurance allowed by state law, which is a lot smaller than a million bucks.
That said, I'm not sure what the threshold is these days. It seems it would be pretty easy for a cab to do a couple of million in damage in NYC.
You are an idiot if you think charter schools are better than public schools.
Sir, given the eloquence of your argument I think some time in either might be of help to you.
God save us from educational reform. We have had 30 years of it and things only get worse and worse. Less relevant course work, too many tests, talent driven out of the system, destruction of decent school lunches, no PE, etc. All that is left is sports and tests. The last 30 years has been an exercise in how to destroy an educational system.
There's a story that Mayor Koch in New York had an old Lady stop him and say, "Mayor, make it how it used to be." And he said, "Lady, it was never like that."
Educational reform is the only thing we have to try to make the system better, and it's not good enough right now. Some of the time--maybe even most of the time--it is going to be the wrong reform. And then you try something else.
School was terribly done 30 years ago. It's terrible today. Not only because we keep getting the material wrong, but because we haven't BEGUN to figure out the right social dynamics yet, at least as a society.
A teacher *cannot* have absolute control of their classroom, or else abusive teachers will abuse the kids and hurt their development. A teacher *needs* very strong support from their administration and the ability to have an effective response to troublemaking, or they will be unable to run an effective classroom. An administration needs to be afraid enough of being sued that they don't do anything crazy, but willing enough to be sued that they can fail a child, discipline a child, or even put a child to work mopping a floor--so long as they do it respectfully and in order to further the child's social and academic development. A school should be able to assign chores just like a parent can. But you need good oversight, so kids aren't picked on. A teacher who picks on kids all the time needs to be fired. The *Union* should work to fire them. The union should care enough about the kids and their own profession that it wants to keep bad teachers from working.
Your fifth point is notably in error. The issue is one of changing norms; you can change the norms of behavior that people expect of themselves and others in part by changing how they think about other people. That's why you dehumanize the enemy in war with names like "Charlie," for example. That means changing the internal narrative that people use when they think about the person or group of people they are interacting with. Popular entertainment--be it television, video gaming, or via other media--is one way to begin influencing the narrative of a large number of people.
Certainly, there is an economic cost to the individual company to optimizing its narrative in part along the dimension of positive norm-building in those circumstances where it is not in keeping with optimization for marketing to the company's target demographic. However, there is also a cost to society to leaving the norms that this fails to challenge in place. That latter cost may result in many wasted lives, in substantial domestic violence, and in similar things generally considered bad today's standards. When the cost to society exceeds the gain to the company, society has a role in encouraging the company to behave differently. The only legitimate reasons we don't mandate that the company behave differently are that it is very hard to measure the cost to society and that the potential for misuse of the power of censorship is significant enough that we don't give that power to government except in the most extreme situations.
Shouldn't a four-eye principle require two ordinary people or one person with glasses? (Contact lenses obviously don't count.)
(As a side note, it's hard to believe that was ever really a slur).
Details, check the damn details!!
1- there is also a agreement to not put weapons on space
2- Money! you would need a HUGE amount of fuel to put something that big on space, even if piece by piece... probably too expensive for any country.
3- physic laws:
if you fired those guns on space, you would start to move away from the target... so on each fire round you would need to correct the velocity and position, quickly wasting all your fuel
So yes, damn details!! :)
I like to think they would be smart enough to fire the shells by dropping them...
In the alternative, you could just fire the guns on both ends of the ship simultaneously...
No, no, they should be looking over fake plans to raise thebattleship Yamato and put her into space. Go big, or go home.
Or... maybe those are the real plans?
It had 18" guns, the biggest ones ever built for sea and in violation of international arms agreements. If you fire them from space, they're space guns!
If a corporation is causing two "little" earthquakes a day, it is still a cause for concern and a moratorium on the activity that causes the earthquakes until reasonable policy choices can be made.
Then again, if these are already areas of 'elevated seismic hazard', it's quite possible that inducing the plates to slip now will prevent an even larger quake in the future.
Geoengineering is a new science with great unknowns; we should not approach it without caution, nor should we assume anything we do is bad.
Then again, if these are already areas of 'elevated seismic hazard', it's quite possible that inducing the plates to slip now will prevent an even larger quake in the future.
Geoengineering is a new science with great unknowns; we should not approach it without caution, nor should we assume anything we do is bad.
No.
Niagra falls pushes back a lot of rock each year. Maybe it keeps more rock from breaking off all at once! Yes, but odds are if you had no Niagra falls the rock would stay for a much longer time.
Well, to properly do this, requires a way to manage libraries separately from apps. And that rapidly becomes a usability nightmare, as well as, ironically, a security nightmare.
What happens when an update comes out? Do you keep both versions? What happens if an app is incompatible with the new version? What if the old version is insecure, and the new version incompatible? Do you go for insecure-but-working, or broken-but-secure? What if the developer isn't around anymore to fix it?
Then there's security - if you come up with a way to do this, how do you isolate the data from one another? How do you keep the library (which has access to everyone's data) from accessing and passing around the information? Perhaps a malicious update goes and accesses everyone's information then dumps it to another app for uploading?
Effectively, the only way is to statically link the library into each app - this way each app contains a library that works and is tested. But it also means developers are responsible for maintaining their apps.
All great questions, but static linking isn't an answer, it's giving up on having an answer.
Does Apple have to sign and push the 3rd party shared library itself? That would be the only safe solution I can think of, because otherwise you're giving apps the ability to modify each others' code, which is clearly a recipe for potential abuse. Apple can't realistically take the responsibility for monitoring, compiling, and pushing updates for third-party libraries, which would be nearly impossible to do in practice. Alternatively, there's no way Apple could allow the apps themselves to update the shared libraries, because then a single app could break or even hack thousands of other apps with a bad update. Delegating that authority to a third-party (like the library developer) is equally problematic, because there's no way for them to properly test any changes before pushing them, and the potential for abuse still exists.
DLLs make a lot of sense for shared systems libraries, but as far as third-party libraries, they'd be a practical nightmare.
Not at all; a developer is making a decision to trust a third-party when he incorporates the third-party library into his app. So long as you allow a developer to flag his app as needing to rely on an older version, the benefits would significantly outweigh the risks. Notably, even *IF* one party were to use a library to hack all those apps, you could still fix it in one place rather than having a vulnerability in every app for a year.
You would have to make strict standards for what behavior libraries can change to fall under this shared model, to minimize the likelihood of breaking any programs, but it's a LOT better to default to "secure even though 1 in 100 apps that both needs an old library and has a developer who failed to flag it as needing an old library has problems until fixed" than it is to "1500 apps insecure, with no timetable for securing."
Non system libraries are statically linked .a files in IOS. Apple insists on this, although I'm not entirely sure why. I guess its to avoid DLL hell.
It saves them money; they don't have to spend the time developing a robust system for DLL registration, signing, updating, etc...
But it is still a really bad engineering decision, because it means what could have been patched once has to push security updates in *fifteen hundred statically linked applications*. It's their marketplace and their walled garden; they should be subsidizing the expenses which make it more secure for everybody and reduce total developer time for publishers. Push the update to developers a little in advance in case it breaks an app, then auto-push the update either to everyone or with a held-back copy for any apps that specifically flag no-security-update.
It's not rocket science, it's just good engineering.