Also, assuming they use some kind of rocket technology (that is, technology that shoots stuff out one side to propel the vehicle in the other), 1/10 c is much more realistic than something approaching c. Assuming a technology that has 100 times the specific impulse as our current vehicles (the best ion thrusters get ~4500 s,) I get using the rocket equation that the initial mass to move 1 ton of cargo is [...]
Why do you assume that any sane civilization would send out macro-sized probes?
Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c.
That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft. If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic.
The US is actually doing *exactly* that in Iraq: Do things our "democratic" way or we'll stay here and keep killing people.
Sneaky turn of phrase there. While it is true that US activity in Iraq consists of killing people, it is done in the manner of any police department: cracking down on those who initiate violence. The connotation of your words, by contrast, is "We'll stay here and keep murdering people".
You didn't need that to make your point... the rest of your post was eloquent and insightful.
So, did you need to smoke a cigarette after posting that?
Did you involuntarily grin while looking up the list of failures?
I'm not stupid enough to label you 'unpatriotic'. But I'm also not stupid enough to believe that you honestly hope the program overcomes its failures and goes on to success.
A lot. The Meyers-Briggs sorts on four axes: Introvert/Extrovert, iNtuitve/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, and Percieving/Judging. I'd consider it a good instance of where the ambiguous mindset is important; it's a useful "engineering approximation" for studying personalities, but there are too many fuzzy-classified people to assign too much importance to it.
Kiersey's big insight was that the sixteen categories (created by the four 'bits' of the MBTI test) can be usefully combined into four supercategories:
xNTx - the Rationals, best at strategy
xNFx - the Idealists, best at diplomacy
xSxJ - the Guardians, best at logistics and infrastructure
xSxP - the Artisans, best at tactics
I say 'usefully' because the categories make meaningful, testable predictions. There is even a lot of good material about what tends to happen in a relationship between an X and a Y, such as between a Rational and an Idealist. Kiersey's book, in which he expounds all this, is "Please Understand Me II". Next time you're bored . . .
I agree with the assessment, but disagree with the reason. More important still than the identification of the "subversive" worldview is the identification of that as a tool of the ambiguous worldview.
Interesting. I would've called 'subversive' the superset because it implies an understanding of the world's ambiguous nature -- that being a consequence of how small our total knowledge of the universe is. A subversive is then able to pierce social conventions because he or she sees them for what they are: simplifications for the benefit of simplified mindsets.
But good point either way.
I've given a copy of The Young Lady's Illustrated Primer to the elder of my nieces, with the absolute certainty that the younger will find it and read it.
I was just thinking how the book's title was meant both internally and externally. Because most of the protagonists are female, it will attract the female audience that (in the current state of affairs) needs it more than males. I say this because males tend to receive a much stronger "trust your mind, take action towards your goals, steamroll anyone who gets in the way" education. Whereas females tend more to receive training to be cooperators. And of course religion comes along and throws another heavy "thou shalt adhere to tribal custom!" blanket on everyone.
Ever read much about Kiersey and his temperament sorter (aka Meyers-Brigg) ? He identifies two fundamental axes of human mindset: cooperator ("how do others do it?") versus utilitarian ("whatever works"), and abstract thinker versus concrete thinker. Most slashdotters are probably abstract utilitarians (aka NTs), and so they may be the very people which Stephenson intended to wear the 'subversive' label. Whats-his-name, the artifex, was definitely an NT. But perhaps the concrete utilitarians (NFs) qualify also.
Alas, I wasn't able to find a copy of the faux-leather bound "monstrous chunk of rod logic" edition.
" The pirates of the world have fired another salvo in their ongoing war with copy protection schemes with the first release of the first full-resolution rip of an HD DVD movie on BitTorrent.
This is like Argentina shelling a German coastal fortification in World War II. It may have great propaganda value, but the real war was Britain-America-Canada versus Germany-Japan-Italy. In the case of DRM, the real war is Studios versus Consumers.
To extend the analogy, the Germans may cite the Argentine attack as a reason to reinforce a particular fortification, but their eye is forcused elsewhere: media-shifting. If they can stop media-shifting (i.e. moving a movie from DVD onto your hard-drive or wherever), then consumers will be trapped in a buy-it-buy-it-buy-it-again scheme.
"Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again." -- Agent K
"The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict.
Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:
global warming is real, and its consequences are mounting, but
climate models are teh suck
Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.
But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.
Never mind the book's prophetic predictions about the impact of nanotechnology. Far more important, I think, is its identification of the "subversive" worldview. If only all parents and children were exposed to a book like Diamond Age, or anything similar, which gives a real defense of the subversive mindset. Perhaps then, more children might be rescued from becoming another generation of social ballast.
Diamond Age won a coveted spot in my "Thou shalt read and discuss" box of books for my sons.:)
She was injured in a way that was caused by their negligence. It's a pretty clear cut case.
It is equally clear cut that her injury was due to her negligent but nevertheless sober consumption of too much water.
That the radio station tempted her to do so is a secondary matter. I could've lured my boyfriend to run across a busy street to meet me, and if he gets hit by a car, well...
In any event, this whole conversation comes down to who you think should be responsible for protecting the buyer: should it be the seller (the radio station) or should it be the buyer (the woman)?
There are certainly a lot of tradeoffs involved. In my view, the most compelling tradeoff is the most far-reaching one: the long-term effect of creating a "you will be protected and even rewarded for not thinking" incentive. Of course, your society's mileage may vary.
I think there is a direct causal link. The Radio Station people held a contest to drink water. Said water caused a swelling of the brain which was fatal.
Yes, and there is a direct causal link between my leaving work five minutes later, and another person thereby merging into traffic two seconds later, and subsequently getting rear-ended by a Mack truck. That is not, or at least should not, be the legal pivot point...
A more relevant pivot point would be the presence or absence of consent. The other driver in my example has consented to the situation even though it was dangerous. Same for the women who drank too much water. I think this is what the other/. commenters were getting at: the issue is not who caused her death; the issue is whether her consent was adequately informed.
This distinction is crystal clear in the medical field. A surgeon often 'directly' causes the death of patient, but that's a risk that the patient consented to.
If there were more steps between the action and the death, I'd say the Radio Station people wouldn't be at risk of criminal charges
If you try to define or defend a precise number of steps (between action and death) in order to qualify as "directly killed", you'll see the difficulty.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Trust people in charge. Think of the Milgram Experiment as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the experiment are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally listen to people they think are athority figures. And in this case, the contest holders are the athority figures.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Obey incentives. Think of the Supply-Demand Curve as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the curve are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally slip into whatever behavior is most strongly incented. And in this case, convicting the contest holders contributes to the already-strong "your gullibility and non-thought will be rewarded" meme that is tearing up our private sector.
The switch from "buyer beware" to "seller beware" is why so many interesting places and things are no longer available to us, or cost ten times as much.
Beyond the lawsuit, I would not be shocked to see criminal charges against the people who ran the contest. Their actions directly led to the death of another person.
I was with you until you misused the word 'directly' for emphasis.
This is not some mysterious malady. The radio station is off the scale negligent for putting contestants in the position of potential serious harm [...]
Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?
There is another angle to the "punishment should fit the crime" point, and that is this: the internet's memory is too long. The old-fashioned kind of shame was visited upon the offender by eyewitnesses, and after a while the incident would be forgotten. Nor could their memories of the incident be accurately spread to non-witnesses. And that was usually sufficient.
This issue was illustrated nicely (and horribly) in the Vietnam war. When the Vietnamese resorted to "total war" tactics, like putting bombs in picnic baskets carried by young girls, it changed the necessary response from their enemy. Their enemy (the US) now had to consider all civilians as potential combatants -- eventually, as likely combatants. Voila, you get Mai Lai and other unpleasantness.
American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.
Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.
al-Quaida and al-Aqsah and their ilk are skipping down the same path, by hiding in and among civilians. Normally this would necessitate flattening whole neighborhoods in which they've got their caches and arty hidden, so let us praise the US military for the expensive restraint it is showing in this situation. Historically, it is utterly unprecedented.
But only the affected civilians can stop it. There's a great quote from Gen. Robert E. Lee about this. While conquering the South, he burned many farms and homesteads as he went. An old woman appealed him to spare her farm. He replied (more or less) "Ma'am, I can't stop this war. Only you can. But you won't until you feel the real cost."
Remember: if your country doesn't have copyright laws, it's not wrong to copy stuff. Many many many things that are illegal in the US are legal elsewhere, and vice versa. Political pressure is not the same as military action.
Then why not move PirateBay to one of those countries, rather than onto an ill-fated quasi-state floating within arm's reach of Her Majesty's navy?
Seriously. Why in the hell isn't PirateBay already located in the Grand Caymans, or Switzerland, or Thailand, or wherever?
There are only three things that drive men in this world: power, money, and sex.
You forgot 'pride'. The expression is "pride, power, and pussy".
Of those, money is only good for obtaining power, and the only point of power is to obtain sex.
Money is also used -- mostly -- to obtain safety and comfort.
The only unfairness in all of it, is that women control half the money [...]
Half? Are you sure about that?
[...] and all of the sex.
Be careful what you complain about. In countries where men control the sex (i.e., where it is still legal to rape one's wife), women end up as chattel, oppressed, withdrawn, and usually barred from education and career. See for example almost any Arab country. This ends up reducing everyone's wealth and happiness.
And anyway, women don't control all the sex. Although they do try mightily to ban prostition, there are always prostitutes available. As well as teh pron. Plus you could always go gay.:)
A study found that women take greater care over their appearance when they are at peak levels of monthly fertility.
Interesting, but hardly surprising. It reminds me of a cool evolutionary-psychology speculation about why women get bitchy when their periods start. The start of a period indicates that her partner has failed to impregnate her, so in terms of natural selection, that is the time to seriously reconsider the relationship.
In any case, it is deeply alarming to see such mounting evidence that most of our "free choices" are impelled from below, from the parts of our brains that still believe we are living in the jungle.
It's perfectly logical as you WILL be coming back genetically if you have offspring. Assuming you have a child or children, and they do the same, you will eventually have a LOT of people connected to you. It's completely logical to care for their well-being.
Why?
I myself am not coming back; only my genes will be, and then in a diluted form. I am not my genes; on the contrary, I am just a vehicle for my genes. They grew me in order to help them spread.
Don't worry, I agree with you about long-term planning. Indeed I have two sons and my thoughts are bent on their long-term wellbeing. All this gives me the euphoric glow of feeling virtuous. But that doesn't mean it's logical such that all parents who disagree are automatically in error.
Clearly, this is not a good millenium to be a business whose profit model consists of controlling access to information channels.
First they came for the travel agents, but I did not speak up because I am not a travel agent.
Then they came for the stockbrokers, but I did not speak up because I am not a stockbroker.
Then they came for the newspapers, but I did not speak up because I am not a newspaperman.
Then they came for the record labels, and there was great rejoicing.
Of all of the possible uses of Nuclear power, using it to power a rocket out of the atmosphere is perhaps the last one I'd want to see actually implemented. It is hard to think of a better way of spreading radioactive particles all over a huge landscape, not to mention what happens when you crash.
Yes, what a disaster that would be -- we would get trace amounts of radioactive particles on the Earth's surface! Oh teh noes!!!11!
Been down in any good basements lately?:P
But seriously, spreading radioactivity "all over a huge landscape" is exactly the safe and optimal way to deal with an exploding nuclear rocket.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you assume that any sane civilization would send out macro-sized probes?
Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c.
That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft. If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic.
Sneaky turn of phrase there. While it is true that US activity in Iraq consists of killing people, it is done in the manner of any police department: cracking down on those who initiate violence. The connotation of your words, by contrast, is "We'll stay here and keep murdering people".
You didn't need that to make your point... the rest of your post was eloquent and insightful.
So, did you need to smoke a cigarette after posting that?
Did you involuntarily grin while looking up the list of failures?
I'm not stupid enough to label you 'unpatriotic'. But I'm also not stupid enough to believe that you honestly hope the program overcomes its failures and goes on to success.
Kiersey's big insight was that the sixteen categories (created by the four 'bits' of the MBTI test) can be usefully combined into four supercategories:
I say 'usefully' because the categories make meaningful, testable predictions. There is even a lot of good material about what tends to happen in a relationship between an X and a Y, such as between a Rational and an Idealist. Kiersey's book, in which he expounds all this, is "Please Understand Me II". Next time you're bored . . .
Interesting. I would've called 'subversive' the superset because it implies an understanding of the world's ambiguous nature -- that being a consequence of how small our total knowledge of the universe is. A subversive is then able to pierce social conventions because he or she sees them for what they are: simplifications for the benefit of simplified mindsets.
But good point either way.
I was just thinking how the book's title was meant both internally and externally. Because most of the protagonists are female, it will attract the female audience that (in the current state of affairs) needs it more than males. I say this because males tend to receive a much stronger "trust your mind, take action towards your goals, steamroll anyone who gets in the way" education. Whereas females tend more to receive training to be cooperators. And of course religion comes along and throws another heavy "thou shalt adhere to tribal custom!" blanket on everyone.
Ever read much about Kiersey and his temperament sorter (aka Meyers-Brigg) ? He identifies two fundamental axes of human mindset: cooperator ("how do others do it?") versus utilitarian ("whatever works"), and abstract thinker versus concrete thinker. Most slashdotters are probably abstract utilitarians (aka NTs), and so they may be the very people which Stephenson intended to wear the 'subversive' label. Whats-his-name, the artifex, was definitely an NT. But perhaps the concrete utilitarians (NFs) qualify also.
*golf clap*
This is like Argentina shelling a German coastal fortification in World War II. It may have great propaganda value, but the real war was Britain-America-Canada versus Germany-Japan-Italy. In the case of DRM, the real war is Studios versus Consumers.
To extend the analogy, the Germans may cite the Argentine attack as a reason to reinforce a particular fortification, but their eye is forcused elsewhere: media-shifting. If they can stop media-shifting (i.e. moving a movie from DVD onto your hard-drive or wherever), then consumers will be trapped in a buy-it-buy-it-buy-it-again scheme.
"Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again." -- Agent K
Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:
Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.
But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.
Excellent.
Never mind the book's prophetic predictions about the impact of nanotechnology. Far more important, I think, is its identification of the "subversive" worldview. If only all parents and children were exposed to a book like Diamond Age, or anything similar, which gives a real defense of the subversive mindset. Perhaps then, more children might be rescued from becoming another generation of social ballast.
Diamond Age won a coveted spot in my "Thou shalt read and discuss" box of books for my sons. :)
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we are not arguing over what is the current law. We are arguing over what the law ought to be.
But please, don't let that little wrinkle interfere with the rush of satisfaction you get from castigating your brethren.
It is equally clear cut that her injury was due to her negligent but nevertheless sober consumption of too much water.
That the radio station tempted her to do so is a secondary matter. I could've lured my boyfriend to run across a busy street to meet me, and if he gets hit by a car, well...
In any event, this whole conversation comes down to who you think should be responsible for protecting the buyer: should it be the seller (the radio station) or should it be the buyer (the woman)?
There are certainly a lot of tradeoffs involved. In my view, the most compelling tradeoff is the most far-reaching one: the long-term effect of creating a "you will be protected and even rewarded for not thinking" incentive. Of course, your society's mileage may vary.
Yes, and there is a direct causal link between my leaving work five minutes later, and another person thereby merging into traffic two seconds later, and subsequently getting rear-ended by a Mack truck. That is not, or at least should not, be the legal pivot point...
A more relevant pivot point would be the presence or absence of consent. The other driver in my example has consented to the situation even though it was dangerous. Same for the women who drank too much water. I think this is what the other /. commenters were getting at: the issue is not who caused her death; the issue is whether her consent was adequately informed.
This distinction is crystal clear in the medical field. A surgeon often 'directly' causes the death of patient, but that's a risk that the patient consented to.
If you try to define or defend a precise number of steps (between action and death) in order to qualify as "directly killed", you'll see the difficulty.
Direct kill: *blam!*
Indirect kill: "Hey, want to drink this? It might hurt you. But go for it if you're feelin' lucky."
Notice the element of consent?
It isn't any different. That's the point of this whole thread.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Obey incentives. Think of the Supply-Demand Curve as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the curve are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally slip into whatever behavior is most strongly incented. And in this case, convicting the contest holders contributes to the already-strong "your gullibility and non-thought will be rewarded" meme that is tearing up our private sector.
The switch from "buyer beware" to "seller beware" is why so many interesting places and things are no longer available to us, or cost ten times as much.
I was with you until you misused the word 'directly' for emphasis.
Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?
Well said.
There is another angle to the "punishment should fit the crime" point, and that is this: the internet's memory is too long. The old-fashioned kind of shame was visited upon the offender by eyewitnesses, and after a while the incident would be forgotten. Nor could their memories of the incident be accurately spread to non-witnesses. And that was usually sufficient.
Not so with YouTube.
Well said.
This issue was illustrated nicely (and horribly) in the Vietnam war. When the Vietnamese resorted to "total war" tactics, like putting bombs in picnic baskets carried by young girls, it changed the necessary response from their enemy. Their enemy (the US) now had to consider all civilians as potential combatants -- eventually, as likely combatants. Voila, you get Mai Lai and other unpleasantness.
American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.
Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.
al-Quaida and al-Aqsah and their ilk are skipping down the same path, by hiding in and among civilians. Normally this would necessitate flattening whole neighborhoods in which they've got their caches and arty hidden, so let us praise the US military for the expensive restraint it is showing in this situation. Historically, it is utterly unprecedented.
But only the affected civilians can stop it. There's a great quote from Gen. Robert E. Lee about this. While conquering the South, he burned many farms and homesteads as he went. An old woman appealed him to spare her farm. He replied (more or less) "Ma'am, I can't stop this war. Only you can. But you won't until you feel the real cost."
Then why not move PirateBay to one of those countries, rather than onto an ill-fated quasi-state floating within arm's reach of Her Majesty's navy?
Seriously. Why in the hell isn't PirateBay already located in the Grand Caymans, or Switzerland, or Thailand, or wherever?
You forgot 'pride'. The expression is "pride, power, and pussy".
Money is also used -- mostly -- to obtain safety and comfort.
Half? Are you sure about that?
Be careful what you complain about. In countries where men control the sex (i.e., where it is still legal to rape one's wife), women end up as chattel, oppressed, withdrawn, and usually barred from education and career. See for example almost any Arab country. This ends up reducing everyone's wealth and happiness.
And anyway, women don't control all the sex. Although they do try mightily to ban prostition, there are always prostitutes available. As well as teh pron. Plus you could always go gay. :)
Interesting, but hardly surprising. It reminds me of a cool evolutionary-psychology speculation about why women get bitchy when their periods start. The start of a period indicates that her partner has failed to impregnate her, so in terms of natural selection, that is the time to seriously reconsider the relationship.
In any case, it is deeply alarming to see such mounting evidence that most of our "free choices" are impelled from below, from the parts of our brains that still believe we are living in the jungle.
Why?
I myself am not coming back; only my genes will be, and then in a diluted form. I am not my genes; on the contrary, I am just a vehicle for my genes. They grew me in order to help them spread.
Don't worry, I agree with you about long-term planning. Indeed I have two sons and my thoughts are bent on their long-term wellbeing. All this gives me the euphoric glow of feeling virtuous. But that doesn't mean it's logical such that all parents who disagree are automatically in error.
...what color curry does it burn for fuel? Red I presume? I just had red curry chicken yesterday, and wow is that stuff hot.
Clearly, this is not a good millenium to be a business whose profit model consists of controlling access to information channels.
First they came for the travel agents, but I did not speak up because I am not a travel agent.
Then they came for the stockbrokers, but I did not speak up because I am not a stockbroker.
Then they came for the newspapers, but I did not speak up because I am not a newspaperman.
Then they came for the record labels, and there was great rejoicing.
ForEx traders have a motive: they can position themselves to make a LOT of money based on small changes in the exchange rates between currencies.
Yes, what a disaster that would be -- we would get trace amounts of radioactive particles on the Earth's surface! Oh teh noes!!!11!
Been down in any good basements lately? :P
But seriously, spreading radioactivity "all over a huge landscape" is exactly the safe and optimal way to deal with an exploding nuclear rocket.