Yeah, everybody remembers he ended the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Of course, the better lesson is that he caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. There wasn't any inherent reason the US couldn't have tried to privately negotiate their removal first, with the trade of removing US missiles in Turkey and Italy that actually happened anyway, rather than making a big public crisis and sending out the navy to confront the Russians and whatnot.
But, then, that's a sober analysis leaning on the fact that the missiles in Cuba didn't seriously increase the threat level to the US as a whole anyway; long-range Soviet missiles and Soviet missile subs already existed, after all. The real issue with the missiles in Cuba was that they combined short flight-times with reasonable accuracy, so that existing plans to evacuate the Top Men from DC in case of a nuclear war were no longer reliable. So the Top Men in DC panicked now that their safety was in danger, and they acted completely irrationally.
The correct response to the CMC would have been for the American public to form a mob and take Kennedy and his NSC and hang them from lampposts for almost starting a nuclear war in a panic. Instead, Kennedy gets all sorts of hosannas because when he pushed us to the brink by performing acts of war against the Soviets and Cubans, Khrushchev was calm and sober enough not to push us over. Khrushchev paid for that world-saving statesmanship, of course; it made the Soviets look weak, which was a major reason he was removed from power a couple years later.
As a technical matter, anybody can set up their own root servers, and anybody can aim their machines to point at different root servers. The maximum damage anyone can do with control of any particular root servers is to make people have to decide to re-aim at an alternative.
As a legal manner, any less-liberal country can already try to pass a law censoring root servers -- Turkey did that to its ISPs. Since Turkey couldn't control root servers outside of Turkey, though, five minutes later Turks were putting graffiti on walls telling each other how to configure their computers to aim at uncensored overseas DNS servers.
If you trust the US not to censor root servers, there's no risk in the US not overseeing the ICANN servers, since alternates could always be set up by private persons or organizations in the US. And if you don't trust the US not to censor root servers, there's no safety in having the US oversee the ICANN servers.
As long as we're imagining, let's imagine if they'd spent the last two decades following through the original GNU plan to build a desktop on top of GNUStep, so our long-refined desktop environment sits on top of an API and object model source-compatible with macOS.
Anybody can set up an alternate root server, and the only thing that makes any particular root server's assignments valuable is if ISPs in general use it. At worst, if ICANN (or any successor) abuses control over the root servers, there will be a few weeks until everybody switches to a fork under new management (probably under a consortium of businesses led by Google anyway). And as the so-called US government oversight of the current servers is entirely without any practical effects at all, so would be "surrendering" it.
The fact that US "control" keeps generating news stories is the obvious reason to give it up; it causes antagonism and controversy without adding any value at all.
"Fair use" is an American legal doctrine (though the Philippines kept it from when it was a US colony and Israel, South Korea, and Poland have recently adopted their own versions), not a UK one. The UK/Commonwealth equivalent is "fair dealing", which is generally more restrictive than US "fair use".
Why assume it's state-sponsored? The Chinese people are perfectly capable of irrational acts of nationalist vandalism all on their own. (It wasn't the Chinese government that denounced the US, attacked KFC and McDonald's outlets, and smashed iPhones in anger over the China-Philippines sea boundaries ruling.)
So, why would angry Chinese attack a Vietnamese target? Simple enough. Because a number of Vietnamese citizens went out and celebrated the sea boundaries ruling, denouncing China and praising the Philippines (without any state support, and in several cases getting arrested by the Vietnamese government for it).
Why would I care what the White House has to say? A job at the White House is not a scientific credential, and this is very obviously not a properly peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal.
If you're an honest business, you will see many regulations as an absolute hassle and cost
And if you're a dishonest businessman, the regulations won't hamper you in the slightest, because you'll just lie on the forms. WorldCom, Enron, and Madoff weren't caught by regulators; the only thing that got them was that when business goes sour, you can't pay debts with fictional accounts.
No, this isn't ICANN's doing..om is the country-code domain for Oman, under the standard policy of using ISO 3166-1 designators, as established by Jon Postel back before ICANN ever existed.
So, they decided to ignore the bullshit you imposed on the series halfway through? Thank goodness, that means we're getting back to the real Star Wars.
It's well-documented that you were just making it up as you went along in the original trilogy.
It wasn't until you made the prequels that you had this whole "generational soap opera" "vision" driving the thing, and the result was decidedly inferior. They're tossing away that "saga" nonsense you imposed post-hoc in favor of something that pleases the fans? That's perfect. That's the only way we're ever going to get anything actually true to the actual original vision of Star Wars.
And if on that basis one wanted to say, "We won't colonize even to Mars in the next hundred years", I'd nod along and accept that as a reasonable conclusion.
But if you think it's reasonable to say "never beyond Mars" based on that reasoning, you're a fucking idiot. Nobody could predict 2015 from 1015 (much less from, say, when the pyramids were being built); anyone who thinks he can predict 3015 (much less 5015) from 2015 is the sort that should be immediately dismissed as a fool.
Screw adventurousness or industry; it's just about the folly of drawing absolute conclusions from vastly insufficient data. We don't have physics for, literally, 95% of the universe (you know, all that "dark matter" and "dark energy"), and we certainly don't have any "psychohistory" that can predict human culture a thousand years ahead even if we posit no breakthroughs in physics at all and assume that there will be no genetic engineering that changes basic human psychology.
If you're predicting humanity will be wiped out by global warming or rogue AI or something before we colonize Mars, that's one thing. But "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossible . . . culturally forever" is too stupid for goddamn words.
I think even Dr. Friedman wouldn't argue that his thesis necessarily stays valid after some combinations of multiple breakthroughs, be it in physics, AI / neurobiology, cheap energy, physiology...
I grant it's a tradition around here to not actually read the articles, but he says, specifically, "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossibleâ"not just physically for the foreseeable future but also culturally forever." So he's discounting all your physical science breakthroughs on the grounds that human culture will never, ever exploit them.
Which is why Dr. Friedman is, in very technical language, "a goddamn fucking senile idiot".
Er? Police cannot legally use thermal imagery to look through the walls or roof of a building without a warrant. There is a Supreme Court case directly on-point, Kyllo v. United States.
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
Sure I do. Which is why every single member and employee of every single environmentalist group that's opposed nuclear power since the 1979 National Academy of Science report on the greenhouse effect belongs in prison, for their complicity in preventing the replacement of coal power with nuclear, thus blocking the reduction in the use of fossil fuels necessary to prevent human extinction.
The linked article is unfortunately abbreviated and incomplete, and as a result, the conclusions being drawn are wrong.
First off, the Society itself is still an independent non-profit. It just no longer has 100% ownership of the magazine. The effect on the Society is that it will have more money to give to scientists (while 21st Century Fox will have no say in how that money is handed out).
Second, they did not sell a controlling interest; the Society explicitly retains 50% of the Board of Directors for the magazine. The "73%" is Fox's share of profits, not control.
Actually, it has everything to do with free speech. Here in the US, it is absolutely legal for me to say, for example:
"Those pig-fucking ape-brained Germans should be exterminated, each and every one. Everyone should find the nearest Germans, burn them out of their homes and shoot them down as they flee, men, women and children alike. And in the future, little children should be taught in school to celebrate the wholly righteous total genocide of the German people."
Because, you see, in the US I actually have freedom of speech.
Facebook policy, of course, bans such a statement just like it bans bare breasts, but US law doesn't require the censorship of either.
It was reverted because, as computers started systematically replacing the typewriter in businesses (instead of being a specialist machine, like terminals), secretary-typists and the typists in corporate typing pools complained about the location of the Caps Lock key not being where they were used to it. Keyboards for computers intended for general business use accordingly swapped over, since the people who typed the most and had the strongest opinions on keyboards in the early 1980s wanted it that way.
Have you ever been annoyed by users of *nix systems that are less popular than Linux? Then have no fear; Wayland is an effort to kill off those platforms.
You see, first you reduce X on Linux to the sort of second-class status that it has on OS X. So then people switch their development for Linux to Wayland. So then they stop maintaining an X version of their app (even if the toolkit they're using supports both X and Wayland), since it costs them resources for such a tiny fragment of people. Then, since nobody's developing for X, the toolkits themselves drop support for X. And then all those people using *BSD or Solaris are up shit creek without a paddle. And then the makers of Linux server distros, who are the ones who have to compete with *BSD and Solaris profit.
Oh, sure, they can't come out and say openly that the purpose of Wayland is to destroy the competition. So they'll talk about all sorts of technical advantages. But then ask yourself, if the goal was simply to create a modernized/simplified/higher-performance/whatever GUI system, why deliberately choose to make it dependent on the Linux kernel, instead of developing such a system for all *nix systems?
Of course, that's why it's at least theoretically a useful interview question. The North Pole answer takes just enough cognitive work to reach that upon arriving at it you can feel clever and stop. So the question filters for the people who don't stop.
(The major problem with it is that it's a reasonably famous such question; I remember reading it and learning the existence of the infinite number of South Pole answers in grade school.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, everybody remembers he ended the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Of course, the better lesson is that he caused the Cuban Missile Crisis. There wasn't any inherent reason the US couldn't have tried to privately negotiate their removal first, with the trade of removing US missiles in Turkey and Italy that actually happened anyway, rather than making a big public crisis and sending out the navy to confront the Russians and whatnot.
But, then, that's a sober analysis leaning on the fact that the missiles in Cuba didn't seriously increase the threat level to the US as a whole anyway; long-range Soviet missiles and Soviet missile subs already existed, after all. The real issue with the missiles in Cuba was that they combined short flight-times with reasonable accuracy, so that existing plans to evacuate the Top Men from DC in case of a nuclear war were no longer reliable. So the Top Men in DC panicked now that their safety was in danger, and they acted completely irrationally.
The correct response to the CMC would have been for the American public to form a mob and take Kennedy and his NSC and hang them from lampposts for almost starting a nuclear war in a panic. Instead, Kennedy gets all sorts of hosannas because when he pushed us to the brink by performing acts of war against the Soviets and Cubans, Khrushchev was calm and sober enough not to push us over. Khrushchev paid for that world-saving statesmanship, of course; it made the Soviets look weak, which was a major reason he was removed from power a couple years later.
Er, that second one, 4,000 deaths per trillion kWH? That was supposed to be natural gas, not coal.
The global rate of deaths per trillion kWH for coal power is 100,000.
The global rate of deaths per trillion kWH for coal power is 4,000.
The global rate of deaths per trillion kWH for hydroelectric power is 1,400.
The global rate of deaths per trillion kWH for wind power is 150.
The global rate of deaths per trillion kWH for nuclear power is 90.
The control you speak of is nonexistent.
As a technical matter, anybody can set up their own root servers, and anybody can aim their machines to point at different root servers. The maximum damage anyone can do with control of any particular root servers is to make people have to decide to re-aim at an alternative.
As a legal manner, any less-liberal country can already try to pass a law censoring root servers -- Turkey did that to its ISPs. Since Turkey couldn't control root servers outside of Turkey, though, five minutes later Turks were putting graffiti on walls telling each other how to configure their computers to aim at uncensored overseas DNS servers.
If you trust the US not to censor root servers, there's no risk in the US not overseeing the ICANN servers, since alternates could always be set up by private persons or organizations in the US. And if you don't trust the US not to censor root servers, there's no safety in having the US oversee the ICANN servers.
As long as we're imagining, let's imagine if they'd spent the last two decades following through the original GNU plan to build a desktop on top of GNUStep, so our long-refined desktop environment sits on top of an API and object model source-compatible with macOS.
This is meaningless outside of symbolism.
Anybody can set up an alternate root server, and the only thing that makes any particular root server's assignments valuable is if ISPs in general use it. At worst, if ICANN (or any successor) abuses control over the root servers, there will be a few weeks until everybody switches to a fork under new management (probably under a consortium of businesses led by Google anyway). And as the so-called US government oversight of the current servers is entirely without any practical effects at all, so would be "surrendering" it.
The fact that US "control" keeps generating news stories is the obvious reason to give it up; it causes antagonism and controversy without adding any value at all.
"Fair use" is an American legal doctrine (though the Philippines kept it from when it was a US colony and Israel, South Korea, and Poland have recently adopted their own versions), not a UK one. The UK/Commonwealth equivalent is "fair dealing", which is generally more restrictive than US "fair use".
Why assume it's state-sponsored? The Chinese people are perfectly capable of irrational acts of nationalist vandalism all on their own. (It wasn't the Chinese government that denounced the US, attacked KFC and McDonald's outlets, and smashed iPhones in anger over the China-Philippines sea boundaries ruling.)
So, why would angry Chinese attack a Vietnamese target? Simple enough. Because a number of Vietnamese citizens went out and celebrated the sea boundaries ruling, denouncing China and praising the Philippines (without any state support, and in several cases getting arrested by the Vietnamese government for it).
Why would I care what the White House has to say? A job at the White House is not a scientific credential, and this is very obviously not a properly peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal.
If you're an honest business, you will see many regulations as an absolute hassle and cost
And if you're a dishonest businessman, the regulations won't hamper you in the slightest, because you'll just lie on the forms. WorldCom, Enron, and Madoff weren't caught by regulators; the only thing that got them was that when business goes sour, you can't pay debts with fictional accounts.
No, this isn't ICANN's doing. .om is the country-code domain for Oman, under the standard policy of using ISO 3166-1 designators, as established by Jon Postel back before ICANN ever existed.
It's come to this now?
"Now"?
The agencies persistently pester for it. They were asking for it twenty years ago; they'll still be asking in another twenty years.
So, they decided to ignore the bullshit you imposed on the series halfway through? Thank goodness, that means we're getting back to the real Star Wars.
It's well-documented that you were just making it up as you went along in the original trilogy.
It wasn't until you made the prequels that you had this whole "generational soap opera" "vision" driving the thing, and the result was decidedly inferior. They're tossing away that "saga" nonsense you imposed post-hoc in favor of something that pleases the fans? That's perfect. That's the only way we're ever going to get anything actually true to the actual original vision of Star Wars.
And if on that basis one wanted to say, "We won't colonize even to Mars in the next hundred years", I'd nod along and accept that as a reasonable conclusion.
But if you think it's reasonable to say "never beyond Mars" based on that reasoning, you're a fucking idiot. Nobody could predict 2015 from 1015 (much less from, say, when the pyramids were being built); anyone who thinks he can predict 3015 (much less 5015) from 2015 is the sort that should be immediately dismissed as a fool.
Screw adventurousness or industry; it's just about the folly of drawing absolute conclusions from vastly insufficient data. We don't have physics for, literally, 95% of the universe (you know, all that "dark matter" and "dark energy"), and we certainly don't have any "psychohistory" that can predict human culture a thousand years ahead even if we posit no breakthroughs in physics at all and assume that there will be no genetic engineering that changes basic human psychology.
If you're predicting humanity will be wiped out by global warming or rogue AI or something before we colonize Mars, that's one thing. But "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossible . . . culturally forever" is too stupid for goddamn words.
I think even Dr. Friedman wouldn't argue that his thesis necessarily stays valid after some combinations of multiple breakthroughs, be it in physics, AI / neurobiology, cheap energy, physiology...
I grant it's a tradition around here to not actually read the articles, but he says, specifically, "Getting beyond Mars (with humans) is impossibleâ"not just physically for the foreseeable future but also culturally forever." So he's discounting all your physical science breakthroughs on the grounds that human culture will never, ever exploit them.
Which is why Dr. Friedman is, in very technical language, "a goddamn fucking senile idiot".
Er? Police cannot legally use thermal imagery to look through the walls or roof of a building without a warrant. There is a Supreme Court case directly on-point, Kyllo v. United States.
You seem to think that condemning humanity to extinction isn't a form of "oppression".
Sure I do. Which is why every single member and employee of every single environmentalist group that's opposed nuclear power since the 1979 National Academy of Science report on the greenhouse effect belongs in prison, for their complicity in preventing the replacement of coal power with nuclear, thus blocking the reduction in the use of fossil fuels necessary to prevent human extinction.
So the problem isn't that Corbyn's an idiot, but that the British people are idiots, and Corbyn's just giving them the idiocy they want?
The linked article is unfortunately abbreviated and incomplete, and as a result, the conclusions being drawn are wrong.
First off, the Society itself is still an independent non-profit. It just no longer has 100% ownership of the magazine. The effect on the Society is that it will have more money to give to scientists (while 21st Century Fox will have no say in how that money is handed out).
Second, they did not sell a controlling interest; the Society explicitly retains 50% of the Board of Directors for the magazine. The "73%" is Fox's share of profits, not control.
Actually, it has everything to do with free speech. Here in the US, it is absolutely legal for me to say, for example:
"Those pig-fucking ape-brained Germans should be exterminated, each and every one. Everyone should find the nearest Germans, burn them out of their homes and shoot them down as they flee, men, women and children alike. And in the future, little children should be taught in school to celebrate the wholly righteous total genocide of the German people."
Because, you see, in the US I actually have freedom of speech.
Facebook policy, of course, bans such a statement just like it bans bare breasts, but US law doesn't require the censorship of either.
Mechanically, it's mostly already consolidated down to three - the ANSI, ISO, and JIS keyboards.
It was reverted because, as computers started systematically replacing the typewriter in businesses (instead of being a specialist machine, like terminals), secretary-typists and the typists in corporate typing pools complained about the location of the Caps Lock key not being where they were used to it. Keyboards for computers intended for general business use accordingly swapped over, since the people who typed the most and had the strongest opinions on keyboards in the early 1980s wanted it that way.
Have you ever been annoyed by users of *nix systems that are less popular than Linux? Then have no fear; Wayland is an effort to kill off those platforms.
You see, first you reduce X on Linux to the sort of second-class status that it has on OS X. So then people switch their development for Linux to Wayland. So then they stop maintaining an X version of their app (even if the toolkit they're using supports both X and Wayland), since it costs them resources for such a tiny fragment of people. Then, since nobody's developing for X, the toolkits themselves drop support for X. And then all those people using *BSD or Solaris are up shit creek without a paddle. And then the makers of Linux server distros, who are the ones who have to compete with *BSD and Solaris profit.
Oh, sure, they can't come out and say openly that the purpose of Wayland is to destroy the competition. So they'll talk about all sorts of technical advantages. But then ask yourself, if the goal was simply to create a modernized/simplified/higher-performance/whatever GUI system, why deliberately choose to make it dependent on the Linux kernel, instead of developing such a system for all *nix systems?
Of course, that's why it's at least theoretically a useful interview question. The North Pole answer takes just enough cognitive work to reach that upon arriving at it you can feel clever and stop. So the question filters for the people who don't stop.
(The major problem with it is that it's a reasonably famous such question; I remember reading it and learning the existence of the infinite number of South Pole answers in grade school.)
To avoid Oracle's copyrights!