"This will corrupt whatever experiment that's supposed to be occurring and the outraged grad student will ragequit the simulation and start over."
You'll know it is in fact happening because dolphins will disappear all of a sudden (well, you may find a farewell note thanking for the fishes, but that will be all).
Civil aviation spends millions trying to avoid birds near the major airports.
"perhaps it should actually show that small drones that weigh a few pounds really aren't more dangerous to aircraft than birds."
Except that: 1) We know (and act upon) birds *are* quite dangerous to aircraft. 2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
"The noble savage isn't a fallacy, it's a romantic ideal."
Only it is not an ideal the type of "that's what we should aspire to" but in "that's the way things used to be and we should learn from" and, since things didn't use to be that way, the noble savage *is* a fallacy -or a myth, if so you prefer.
I bet you haven't read 1058 James Blish's "A Case of Conscience". I wouldn't say it's plagiarism but it certainly explores a very similar universe with basically all the same clues you find in Avatar.
"Between the incredible amounts of money they hoard and the iron fist they exert for control, the MPAA strikes me as far closer to something resembling a pirate than the loner in his basement who downloads a movie on Friday nights."
Did you pay attention that in this entry, as it happens in others when there's a strongly economical partner (i.e.: articles about global warming) some 80% or more of the comments come from Anonymous Cowards going on with either long-winded cliche opinions or non-related ones with the net result of increasing the noise to info rates?
The MPAA just wants to get their cake -and they surrogate to themselves the right of saying what their cake should be.
Quite so. Even the front line is misleading: it reads "Out-of-Date Apps Put 3 Million Servers At Risk" when it really should read "buggy apps put 3 million servers at risk". Well, of course, this would put the blame on shoddy software vendors, so it's better to blame the customers.
"asimov's detective stories about elijah bailey, which were incredibly dense logical reasoning"
I'll make you a favor and will consider that you finding Elijah Bailey's stories to be "incredibly dense logical reasoning" are just probing those studies' authors right: speed reading does in fact miss a lot of meaning or, in other words, dumbs you down.
"And you think this type of gleaning of information will end up benefiting mankind as much as electricity did?"
Of course not. Has anyone said otherwise except on you strawman argument?
"Since Wal-mart of 25 years ago is basically the Amazon of today"
It obviously is not and that's why basically Amazon got Wal-Mart to bankruptcy. What it is true is that Wal-mart added such an efficiency boost that it made it leader on its business niche, just as Amazon today did the same. For that very reason is obvious that Amazon's productivity is lightyears above that of Wal-mart's, just like Wal-mart was above their competitors.
"can you comment on how Wal-mart has contributed to the productivity of mankind as a whole?"
Sorrily, if you can't see how the Wal-mart approach contributed to productivity, it is not me the one to expend the time to explain it to you. Mainly because you are up here for your strawman argument, not trying to understand what is all this about.
"Are you suggesting that Amazon would willingly share the knowledge that gives them the edge in the marketplace?"
No. He is suggesting there's no way Amazon can indefinitely get their "secret sauce" for themselves. Even if no one ever told anything to its competitors (which just can't happen in the long run), just looking to their effects and knowing that it can be done is enough for competitors to come up to the same solutions or others functionally equivalent. For an obvious example, just look at the evolution of cars or motorbikes' competitions.
No, it isn't. It is a whole sector's improvement which, of course, benefits the most to its leader and champion.
Nowadays Amazon (and the market improvement it leads) allows for a minor builder/vendor to reach a customer base on the other side of the world. The same can be said for the customers. And this, at a ridiculously low cost/effort for both parties involved which in turns means more transactions can be done with a given investment.
"none of that manifests itself in making the work force at large more productive."
You say in another post "I don't think productivity means what you think it means". Well, I'd say it is *you* the one that thinks "productivity" to mean what it doesn't mean.
I take that you think productivity of the labor force means that each employee directly produces more of something (like when you give an employee a better tool so he produces X*2 gadgets per hour versus the X gadgets/hour he used to produce). Quite sensible... but wrong. Productivity is something simpler than that: it's just how big a profit I can make with how many people. As such, a completely automated factory is a tremendous increment in labor productivity, even if it just means 1000 people are now in the unemployment queue doing nothing. Maybe the problem is thinking that "productivity" is something "good" in and by itself, therefore anything that leads to a problem can't be a "true" productivity increase.
"Some people seem to be selling the idea that the US killing them somewhat faster than they expected to be killed makes the US entirely responsible. I'm not buying that."
Neither do I. For the most part, I agree with your reasoning (to which it can be added that, if the bombs were dropped for the Russians, only in Japanese territory, which I find quite likely, it may well mean that the A-bombing in Japan was critical to avoid a global nuclear war some two decades later).
But that's beyond the point here, since it "just" was "the A-Bombs were basically unavoidable" usually followed by "...and we, Americans, shouldn't feel bad for opening that pandora's box" that conforms the vast majority of USA's public opinion, almost without any debate which, given the *publicly* avaliable information, I find simply astonishing.
"Let's assume that everything known in this document was known in August of 1945"
If we assume it to be right, the rest of your argument is moot: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated"
No invasion means no Americans killed by the thousands. In fact, the argument from the USSBS is twofold: on one hand, air dominance was the key; on the other, it could have been done with lower enemy civilian casualties out of the lessons learned on the European theater, so it also meant less Japanese deaths too.
Still the key point (on this thread) stays: no, the atomic bombs were not needed to end the Pacific war without a massive carnage from a land invasion.
"The US Government has NEVER said anything remotely close to that"
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Volume 2 - Japan's Struggle to End the War, pg. 13
Now you probably will say that the "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not The US Government", or something like that (it was "only" the result of the mandate from the Secretary of War pursuant to a directive from President Roosvelt). Well, whatever.
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Volume 2 - Japan's Struggle to End the War, pg. 13
"It's an interesting read, and I don't think the conclusions are as clear cut as what you're describing."
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
"where atomic weapons weren't used, there is no nation of Japan, just the mass graves of thousands of allied soldiers, millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians"
Meanwhile in *another* alternate universe where atomic weapons weren't used either, Japan is still there and not a single victim, soldier or civilian, Japanese or American, died after august the first 1945 when USA decided, on the military front, just to sit on their pants knowing that Japan had no navy nor aerial reserves to make any harm and, on the diplomatic front, attend the Japanese offers for rendition that came through both the Russian and Finland ambassadors. The war formally ended by November the 1st, 1945, exactly in the same terms as in our "real" universe.
Those basically were the conclusions reached by U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey from the Chairman's Office, 19 Jun 1946
""Psycholinguistic theory suggests that interpretation must be consistent between two people in order to avoid communication challenges."
FFS, really?"
Yes, really: we only *suggest* it being the case because we need more grant money to be sure -once we finish a very nice experiment about mixing hot and cold water, that is.
"PS: DevOps is a new title for what used to be a senior sysadmin worth his salt -it's only neither the youngsters nor the HR dpt. know it.
Not really. Infrastructure as code or automating deployments, is not the ultimate goal. If a senior sysadmin sits away from the devs, there's always a lack of alignment."
Not necessarily: the sysadmin knows his way through code, since that was needed it to even compile it, and the developer knows his way into systems, since that's needed to program something with chances to work, makes aligment much more easier. Open Source was (informally) the statu quo, that's why people just started programming the BSD distribution on top of UNIX, and that explains why Stallman was so angry when he couldn't tweak his printer. And then, it was the sysadmin the one having the "wide vision" to understand how all pieces fit together. The toolchain certainly evolutions, but not the concepts that work versus those that doesn't.
Docker isn't that bad in the same sense PHP isn't that bad: while it may be judiciously used in some scenarios, it's ability to be misused probably makes it safer to just outright ban it.
"Being long since retired, I have no experience with the DevOps concept. It sounds pretty bizzare."
It is not, in fact. It all boils down to just taking a tight team of people, with the proper push, seniority and complementary abilities to cover top to bottom a service's needs and let them do their stuff.
Doesn't sound such a new concept, does it?
"I suspect that any organization that found it appealing will buy into most any magic based development scheme."
Probably you are right since any organization that thinks "DevOps" is a new shiny silver bullet is so disconnected to their business reality that they already are cannon fodder for any snake oil seller -of course, that's the case for a depressing percentage of business anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
"This will corrupt whatever experiment that's supposed to be occurring and the outraged grad student will ragequit the simulation and start over."
You'll know it is in fact happening because dolphins will disappear all of a sudden (well, you may find a farewell note thanking for the fishes, but that will be all).
"He's forming a hypothesis based on observed evidence."
No, he isn't. He is just making a reasoned inference.
"The only thing missing is the ability to replicate the results..."
Because there're no results to come with.
Hint: keyword here is INFINITE.
"And, do you really think that if someone wants to use a drone to try crashing a plane, the regulation is going to stop them?"
Quite so, if that's really the intent.
But the problem is what they'll come with under the "oh, my... it's the drones!" excuse.
"We don't worry about the dangers of birds"
Excuse me?
Civil aviation spends millions trying to avoid birds near the major airports.
"perhaps it should actually show that small drones that weigh a few pounds really aren't more dangerous to aircraft than birds."
Except that:
1) We know (and act upon) birds *are* quite dangerous to aircraft.
2) We know drones have a distintive characteristic that may make them more dangerous: they have an intelligent will backing them up (i.e.: adding explosives and/or the ability to crash on purpose).
"The noble savage isn't a fallacy, it's a romantic ideal."
Only it is not an ideal the type of "that's what we should aspire to" but in "that's the way things used to be and we should learn from" and, since things didn't use to be that way, the noble savage *is* a fallacy -or a myth, if so you prefer.
"I think they did some excellent worldbuilding"
I bet you haven't read 1058 James Blish's "A Case of Conscience". I wouldn't say it's plagiarism but it certainly explores a very similar universe with basically all the same clues you find in Avatar.
"Between the incredible amounts of money they hoard and the iron fist they exert for control, the MPAA strikes me as far closer to something resembling a pirate than the loner in his basement who downloads a movie on Friday nights."
Did you pay attention that in this entry, as it happens in others when there's a strongly economical partner (i.e.: articles about global warming) some 80% or more of the comments come from Anonymous Cowards going on with either long-winded cliche opinions or non-related ones with the net result of increasing the noise to info rates?
The MPAA just wants to get their cake -and they surrogate to themselves the right of saying what their cake should be.
Quite so. Even the front line is misleading: it reads "Out-of-Date Apps Put 3 Million Servers At Risk" when it really should read "buggy apps put 3 million servers at risk". Well, of course, this would put the blame on shoddy software vendors, so it's better to blame the customers.
"asimov's detective stories about elijah bailey, which were incredibly dense logical reasoning"
I'll make you a favor and will consider that you finding Elijah Bailey's stories to be "incredibly dense logical reasoning" are just probing those studies' authors right: speed reading does in fact miss a lot of meaning or, in other words, dumbs you down.
"And you think this type of gleaning of information will end up benefiting mankind as much as electricity did?"
Of course not. Has anyone said otherwise except on you strawman argument?
"Since Wal-mart of 25 years ago is basically the Amazon of today"
It obviously is not and that's why basically Amazon got Wal-Mart to bankruptcy. What it is true is that Wal-mart added such an efficiency boost that it made it leader on its business niche, just as Amazon today did the same. For that very reason is obvious that Amazon's productivity is lightyears above that of Wal-mart's, just like Wal-mart was above their competitors.
"can you comment on how Wal-mart has contributed to the productivity of mankind as a whole?"
Sorrily, if you can't see how the Wal-mart approach contributed to productivity, it is not me the one to expend the time to explain it to you. Mainly because you are up here for your strawman argument, not trying to understand what is all this about.
"Are you suggesting that Amazon would willingly share the knowledge that gives them the edge in the marketplace?"
No. He is suggesting there's no way Amazon can indefinitely get their "secret sauce" for themselves. Even if no one ever told anything to its competitors (which just can't happen in the long run), just looking to their effects and knowing that it can be done is enough for competitors to come up to the same solutions or others functionally equivalent. For an obvious example, just look at the evolution of cars or motorbikes' competitions.
"But that is a private corporate improvement."
No, it isn't. It is a whole sector's improvement which, of course, benefits the most to its leader and champion.
Nowadays Amazon (and the market improvement it leads) allows for a minor builder/vendor to reach a customer base on the other side of the world. The same can be said for the customers. And this, at a ridiculously low cost/effort for both parties involved which in turns means more transactions can be done with a given investment.
"none of that manifests itself in making the work force at large more productive."
You say in another post "I don't think productivity means what you think it means". Well, I'd say it is *you* the one that thinks "productivity" to mean what it doesn't mean.
I take that you think productivity of the labor force means that each employee directly produces more of something (like when you give an employee a better tool so he produces X*2 gadgets per hour versus the X gadgets/hour he used to produce). Quite sensible... but wrong. Productivity is something simpler than that: it's just how big a profit I can make with how many people. As such, a completely automated factory is a tremendous increment in labor productivity, even if it just means 1000 people are now in the unemployment queue doing nothing. Maybe the problem is thinking that "productivity" is something "good" in and by itself, therefore anything that leads to a problem can't be a "true" productivity increase.
ÂPeople don't get to arbitrarily define how they use wordsÂ
Yes, they do. There's even a word for extreme cases of that: "jargon".
"Some people seem to be selling the idea that the US killing them somewhat faster than they expected to be killed makes the US entirely responsible. I'm not buying that."
Neither do I. For the most part, I agree with your reasoning (to which it can be added that, if the bombs were dropped for the Russians, only in Japanese territory, which I find quite likely, it may well mean that the A-bombing in Japan was critical to avoid a global nuclear war some two decades later).
But that's beyond the point here, since it "just" was "the A-Bombs were basically unavoidable" usually followed by "...and we, Americans, shouldn't feel bad for opening that pandora's box" that conforms the vast majority of USA's public opinion, almost without any debate which, given the *publicly* avaliable information, I find simply astonishing.
"Let's assume that everything known in this document was known in August of 1945"
If we assume it to be right, the rest of your argument is moot: "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated"
No invasion means no Americans killed by the thousands. In fact, the argument from the USSBS is twofold: on one hand, air dominance was the key; on the other, it could have been done with lower enemy civilian casualties out of the lessons learned on the European theater, so it also meant less Japanese deaths too.
Still the key point (on this thread) stays: no, the atomic bombs were not needed to end the Pacific war without a massive carnage from a land invasion.
"Where's Steve Garvey? Survey says?"
Nice "True Scotsman".
-The Government never said that.
-Yes, it did, under the auspices of the Secretary of War.
-Oh, well, but, but... it doesn't count!
"The US Government has NEVER said anything remotely close to that"
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Volume 2 - Japan's Struggle to End the War, pg. 13
http://www.wwiiarchives.net/se...
Now you probably will say that the "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey is not The US Government", or something like that (it was "only" the result of the mandate from the Secretary of War pursuant to a directive from President Roosvelt). Well, whatever.
"The US governmentt never stated that officially"
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Volume 2 - Japan's Struggle to End the War, pg. 13
http://www.wwiiarchives.net/se...
"It's an interesting read, and I don't think the conclusions are as clear cut as what you're describing."
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Whatever.
"where atomic weapons weren't used, there is no nation of Japan, just the mass graves of thousands of allied soldiers, millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians"
Meanwhile in *another* alternate universe where atomic weapons weren't used either, Japan is still there and not a single victim, soldier or civilian, Japanese or American, died after august the first 1945 when USA decided, on the military front, just to sit on their pants knowing that Japan had no navy nor aerial reserves to make any harm and, on the diplomatic front, attend the Japanese offers for rendition that came through both the Russian and Finland ambassadors. The war formally ended by November the 1st, 1945, exactly in the same terms as in our "real" universe.
Those basically were the conclusions reached by U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey from the Chairman's Office, 19 Jun 1946
"Easy for you to say, 70 years on"
Yes, it's quite easy for him to say, since scholars and even the USA Government already agreed on that being the case.
""Psycholinguistic theory suggests that interpretation must be consistent between two people in order to avoid communication challenges."
FFS, really?"
Yes, really: we only *suggest* it being the case because we need more grant money to be sure -once we finish a very nice experiment about mixing hot and cold water, that is.
"PS: DevOps is a new title for what used to be a senior sysadmin worth his salt -it's only neither the youngsters nor the HR dpt. know it.
Not really. Infrastructure as code or automating deployments, is not the ultimate goal. If a senior sysadmin sits away from the devs, there's always a lack of alignment."
Not necessarily: the sysadmin knows his way through code, since that was needed it to even compile it, and the developer knows his way into systems, since that's needed to program something with chances to work, makes aligment much more easier. Open Source was (informally) the statu quo, that's why people just started programming the BSD distribution on top of UNIX, and that explains why Stallman was so angry when he couldn't tweak his printer. And then, it was the sysadmin the one having the "wide vision" to understand how all pieces fit together. The toolchain certainly evolutions, but not the concepts that work versus those that doesn't.
"Docker isn't that bad."
Docker isn't that bad in the same sense PHP isn't that bad: while it may be judiciously used in some scenarios, it's ability to be misused probably makes it safer to just outright ban it.
"Being long since retired, I have no experience with the DevOps concept. It sounds pretty bizzare."
It is not, in fact. It all boils down to just taking a tight team of people, with the proper push, seniority and complementary abilities to cover top to bottom a service's needs and let them do their stuff.
Doesn't sound such a new concept, does it?
"I suspect that any organization that found it appealing will buy into most any magic based development scheme."
Probably you are right since any organization that thinks "DevOps" is a new shiny silver bullet is so disconnected to their business reality that they already are cannon fodder for any snake oil seller -of course, that's the case for a depressing percentage of business anyway.