We are all, every day, faced with our own little compulsions imposed upon us by our own particular brain chemistry and billions of years of evolution. Almost all of them can be resisted with minimal application of willpower.
But there exist things that can grab ahold of and twist your brain chemistry in such a way that willpower is no longer the answer. Addiction comes to mind - those that are well and truly addicted to alcohol or crack or heroin or whatever will do ANYTHING to get their next hit, and their willpower is insufficient to do otherwise.
Depending on the nature of that tumor, it could make children attractive - one would hope, resistible by anybody with reasonable amounts of willpower. Or it could literally COMPEL someone to carry out acts of child abuse; he could have no choice at all in the matter.
Our brains - and by extension, our personalities - are a mixture of free will and deterministic responses to biochemistry. When someone exercises the "free will" portion of their personality and CHOOSES to do something horrible, then it is right and just to punish them for it. If, however, someone is the helpless tool of their biochemistry, then punishing them isn't just unjust, it is also ineffective.
And yes, determining the line between "I did it" and "the devil (in the form of my biochemistry) made me do it" is difficult to say the least, no more so than because we're talking about a range, not two discrete points - how LOUD are the voices in my head?
Given my experience with addicts, I can say that your "worst case #1" is not only possible, but happens in the wild. There's a reason why addiction is considered a disease.
AutoCAD is a 2D drawing tool with functions optimized for the production of scale drawings. It is an extension of the old T-Square And Pencil technique into the computer; a sort of Adobe Illustrator tuned to drafting.
It is very, very good at this, and I found it (given that I had a little old skool drafting experience) fairly easy to adapt to.
But at its core, you're still projecting 3D objects into 2D or psudo 3D (orthometric projections) using the draftsman's brain as the projection device.
Enter Solidworks.
Solidworks is a parametric 3D modeling package. You create the object in 3D, and then the software generates your 2D drawings from it. No more construction lines. No more mismatched views.
There have been 3D modelers before (VariCAD for Linux isn't bad) but Solidworks takes it a step farther - it remembers every step in the construction of an object, and every step is tunable. Where past 3D modelers used Boolean operations to construct their shapes - but then the shape was fixed - Solidworks allows you to change the parameters of every operation at any time. Punch a hole through an object, but then discover it is the wrong size? No problem - just select the hole in the object's construction tree, and change its size.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It has revolutionized mechanical drawing, to the point where it is inconceivable that I'd ever use AutoCAD ever again. Solidworks is one of the few software packages I've ever used that just left me dumbfounded in amazement at how powerful, easy, and intuitive it is.
Yeah, I vaguely remember the AI "coming back to life" and playing GTNW against itself (in simulation) and losing every time, then deciding the "only way to win is not to play".
But that doesn't make any difference; the AI playing "for real" or the actual human controllers seeing the game data on their screens and assuming they were seeing a real strike - the end result is the same thing: a real counterstrike launched in response to fake (simulated) data.
And while the process to get to that point is nowhere near as facile as depicted in the film, the concept is at least plausible.
But when you change the nature of the system to a counter-terrorism, there's no longer anyone to launch missiles against - thus, no consequences for duping either real humans or a controlling AI that a strike was ongoing.
Hard for a good movie to spring from a dumb premise....
The premise behind the original - for those too young to remember - is (abridged) that a hacker breaks in to a NORAD computer and proceeds to run a wargame simulation of an ICBM strike on the continental US. The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched.
That's probably not an exact synopsis of the plot, but it's close enough to make no nevermind.
Now in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, which relies on a massive counterstrike against the initiator BEFORE his missiles arrive at their targets, this is at least a plausible scenario - close enough to allow sufficient suspension of disbelief to allow the movie to work. It's true that these command centres were manned 24/7 watching for any sign of an incoming strike, and that the time window between detecting the strike and making the decision to initiate the counterstrike was very small. It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.
But we aren't in that game anymore. There is no longer a 20 minute window in which someone has to decide to launch a nuclear counterstrike based on a fairly narrow band of incoming data. No terrorist group - indeed, very few nations - are capable of the "mutual" in "Mutually Assured Destruction".
So a Homeland Security central command centre starts reporting dozens to hundreds of terrorist strikes on US Territory? So what? Response will be in the hands of local Guard units and law enforcement/emergency responders, not a remote C3S cell. The worst that could happen is that troops are mobilized needlessly - and there's time to see if the purported strikes show up on CNN.
The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.
That doesn't bode well for the success of the movie, methinks.
Actually, the modern US Army is a surprisingly agile and adaptive force. It's not like the Cold War Army of the 80s that used mass and raw firepower as a replacement for training.
We used to joke about how dumb the Yanks were - nice guys, but dumb as rocks. Things like the Dragon ATGM manual being a comic book didn't help that impression very much. Yank training was very focussed on accomplishing a specific job for a specific soldier, with little to no contingency training. Compare against Canadian doctrine, which was to train everybody as broadly as possible so their soldiers were more flexible and adaptive.
The Yanks aren't quite there yet - there's simply to many of them to train to that level - but in the last 5 years or so, they've come up with all sorts of great innovations in the training process such that they get maximum bang for their training buck. We're adopting Yank training techniques left, right, and centre - because they work, and work well. It is not unheard of for a lesson learned in the field to be incorporated into the next applicable training course a week later.
And while there is still that Yank tendency to swat flies with nukes, they ARE learning - go Google "the strategic corporal" and "three block war" for examples.
They don't have the experience with protracted insurgency that the Brits do (thanks to Northern Ireland and the IRA) but that is coming as well.
And not everything is unconventional war these days. The operations in the Kandahar area the last couple of months were classic combat team in the advance, fighting large enemy fighting formations in the field. Army on army combat has NOT gone away.
The American failures are with political leadership, not with the troops on the ground.
One of the things that surprised me when I upgraded to an HD connection was just how much "HD" content was really just upconverted "regular" video.
There is very little programming that is really honestly truly 720p/1080p - but the stuff that is, is spectacular.
I agree with you that a 480p DVD looks pretty damn good on an HD screen, but real shot-in-HD content is a whole lot better.
What I'm afraid of with Blu-Ray/HDVD is a similar problem - is the content actually generated in higher resolutions, or is it just a really good upconvert of lower-res source material?
Amazingly, I've got all those books on my shelf. Good list.
Allow me to add to your list:
"On Combat" by Col Grossman. Where "On Killing" is analysis, "On Combat" is tactics - how to deal with the physiological and psychological consequences of being called upon to deal deadly force. A must read for any soldier, cop, EMT tech, but a good read for everybody else. Col Grossman also has an audio presentation of the stuff in this book, it is fascinating stuff.
"The Face of Battle" and "The Mask of Command" by John Keegan. Analysis of leadership and command in a military setting. Keegan is very readable and has tons of insights - and his other works, mostly histories, are also excellent. An oeuvre well worth perusing.
"Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card and "Starship Troopers" by Heinlein - probably the best books on the practical application of personal leadership skills and the development of same ever written. Seriously. Grok these books and you learn how to lead men.
I can't speak for all signatories, but in *my* Army, the Convention is taken very VERY seriously with enormous penalties for those who violate it.
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
Once upon a time, war was the (almost) exclusive purview of uniformed armies fighting other uniformed armies.
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
In St-Jean sur Richelieu, just south of Montreal, is a place called Vitos.
Find the military college, go out the front gate, turn right, and walk about 1.2 km - it's just inside downtown. Go past the railroad spike monument and you're almost there. Big orange sign.
Hell, we've got Google Earth now.... I'm going to go with 45 18'16.88" x 73 15'06.26" Right around there.
Best. Poutine. Ever.
Order a "grosse poutine avec viande" and be prepared for a glutenous mass of pure heaven.
Tell 'em that a former CMR cadet sent you (un ancien eleve officier du College)
DG 18145
Re:This is as good a place as any for rebuttals...
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
As much as I am in favour of gun control (I am Canadian, after all) it only takes a few minutes of searching to find out that the majority of guns in the US (and Canada for that matter) will *never* be used on another person.
Some are for sporting purposes, others for recreational hunting, still others for collecting or similar hobbies, and the rest are more like touchstones, representing some sort of assurance of personal security, even though they will never be used as intended, and most would find themselves unable to use them should the opportunity actually arise.
I don't have any figures to break these down by category, and I'm afraid that any figures coming out of the NRA would be suspect... but a simple count of the number of guns extant, divided by the number of shootings per annum, shows that most are never used as weapons.
As far as the percent of GNP spent on the American defense establishment, and the worth of that money vice other potential places to spend it... this is a slippery topic that is closely tied to American partisan politics, where "my side" is always right, and "your side" is always wrong, and to hell with the merits. This makes debate likely to be counterproductive, so I'm not interested it discussing it.
I will offer, however, that I would not advocate American levels of "Defence" spending for MY country, and that engaging in a protracted military adventure where there was no credible threat, at the expense of an operation where there WAS a credible threat and a job of national reconstruction yet to be completed (that would be Afghanistan) and in so doing squandering a huge amount of hard-won political capital, while simultaniously spending billions, was perhaps not the wisest course of action.
As far as my own country goes, I would like to see military spending increased, but only slightly. We have been commited to a venture - a noble and just one, as it turns out - but our current budget does not include sufficient funds to replace badly worn-out equipment and training for those not on operations. We need funding to match the missions, but funds in excess of that should be earmarked elsewhere. We simply do not need a fleet of aircraft carriers, $2B USD each stealth bombers, or three different latest-generation fighter aircraft.
As far as the last comment goes, we have long gone past the days of the armed forces of nation-states vying with each other for supremecy and empire. It is simply no longer acceptable for any nation-state to annex the territory of its neigbours through the use of military force; wars of conquest are quite simply over.
Modern militaries are now more about restoring order to failed states, or removing of regimes whose behaviour threatens global security - such as the Taliban in Afghanistan allowing Al Quaida to operate freely within their borders. Clearly, this could not be allowed to continue, and so military force was necessary, right, and just.
We are, however, on a hell of a learning curve here, and not everything we do is as effective as we'd like. We (the global "we") really dropped the ball in Rwanda, and in Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia, and in Somallia, and we're learning the right and wrong ways to do things. Those lessons ARE being learned, and they ARE being applied at the pointy end.
Operations like Afghanistan are NOT about conquest; there's nothing there we could possibly want anyway. They are about restoring peace and security to a land that has been too long without it, and setting the conditions for sucessful rebuilding of the country. Afghanistan has one of the shortest (if not THE shortest) life expectancies, and unbearably high infant mortality rates. That is unacceptable in this day and age, and we have a moral obligation to do something about it.
You may not believe me; you may choose to believe that there are sinister, alterior motives. Believe what you want; I know why we are doing the job, and if I thought it was sinister, I wouldn't be doing what we do.
Don't let the hoster colour your perception of the article...
OK, let's address your "A Few Good Men" example. On its face (and in its heart) it is well-founded, as the Nickleson character in the movie is indeed a sheepdog who has lost the plot and has "gone wolf" to some degree.
But notice that in the movie, it is **other sheepdogs** who bring the rogue back into line.....
That is part of the dillema of being a sheepdog. There **IS** a line beyond which you must not cross. Ultimately, you **SERVE** the sheep; you are not their masters.
Which opens up an interesting observation: consider that in the parent/child relationship, there exists a kind of sheepdog/sheep relationship; the parent's job is to protect the child from harm.
Is it not then the case that a parent that seeks to protect the child by preventing it from playing "tag" might be similar to the rule of a military elite "for the good of the citizens"? Is not the parent in this case the one shouting "you can't HANDLE the truth"?
As I said in another response, any analogy can only be stretched so far, and the problem of how to deal with sheepdogs who "go wolf" (or with wolves who misrepresent themselves as sheepdogs) is real and non-trivial. So we are in agreement there.
As far as being "spiteful" (I would have used "disdainful" myself) of the "ideal world where nobody ever gest hurt"... that is not the case at all. Certainly MY ideal world is one where sheepdogs are unecessary, as there are no more wolves, and nobody ever WANTS to be a wolf.
But my observation is that that ideal world is a long, long, long way off, and (human nature being what it is, only a couple of million years removed from us swinging in the trees) maybe we'll never get there. So we need to be actively promoting sheepdog production, and otherwise building up the skills for living in the real world of bumps, scrapes, setbacks, and the occasional wolf.
You build up immunity to something by exposing yourself to controllable doses of the pathogen or stressor. If you spend your entire life inside a climate-controlled, sterile bubble, then the first time you get exposed to the tiniest disease, it kills you (or at least has a much greater effect on you) Same deal with any stressor. You don't help kids by isolating them from life, you help kids by mitigating their exposure to extreme stressors and helping them deal with the minor ones.
BTW, I'm not an American either... I assume you're a Finn? Well with your universal conscription example, you proved my point - you have had some degree of exposure to sheepdoggery yourself, and so are better prepared to deal with life than someone who has not had that opportunity.
DG
This is as good a place as any for rebuttals....
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
The problem with analogy is that it is, at its heart, simplification of a complex problem - and with simplification comes a loss of detail.
So one needs to be careful with extrapolation of analogy.
One should not take the analogy as recommendation of rule by elites; the "who watches the watchmen" problem is very real and non-trivial. To put it in terms of the original analogy: Sheepdogs are human, and sometimes they can morph into Wolves. So some of the distrust of Sheepdogs by Sheep is well founded. There is a balace to be struck between the Sheepdog's desire for more power and effectiveness in the fight against the Wolves, and the Sheep's desire to limit the destructive potential of the Sheepdog, should he "go Wolf".
Incidentally, although Col Grossman's work was originally on soldiers and soldiering, he has expanded his definition of who constitutes a "sheepdog" to include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and others who put themselves in harm's way in the defense of others.
That work, by the way, is based on intense, SCIENTIFIC studies on the PHYSIOLOGICAL (note the emphasis) effects of stress and violence on human beings, both actors and victims. He has discovered, for example, that the fight-or-flight mechanism is far more sophisticated than first suspected, and while there are certain universals, many people have different reactions. It is not at all unusual for someone involved in a deadly force encounter to experience a slowing down of time, an increase in visual acuity, a decrease in hearing perception (to the point where they don't hear their own gun go off) and a loss of bowel/bladder control.
Read the books, they are full of great SCIENCE and make fascinating reading.
The "Sheep, Sheepdog, Wolf" analogy springs from the fact that most people have a phobic-level stress response to exposure to physical violence; not just when they are participants, but when they are observers. Most people, when backed into a corner, DO NOT bite.
But it is also possible to inoculate people against this stress; to teach them to remain functional when in mortal danger. Anybody who has gone through any sort of military basic training can attest to this.
And the converse is also true - the more you remove stress from people's daily lives, the poorer they handle stress when they ARE exposed to it. Prevent kids from playing and roughousing (within reasonable limits) and you are setting them up for fragility in later life.
Like it or not, the real world is full of bumps, setbacks, and wolves - the problem is not how to avoid the instances of them, but rather, how to handle them when they happen to you.
Finally, NO soldier is "pro war" - not one who has actually seen the elephant at least. But somebody has to stand between the monsters and the weak, and boy howdy, are there ever monsters out there.
If that's not you, fine. You are in the majority after all. My job is to protect you, not like you.
DG
Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This keeps coming back to the Col. Dave Grossman (On Killing, On Combat) Sheep, Wolf, Sheepdog analogy.
I'll paraphrase:
Most people are Sheep - not in the pejurative sense, but rather in the sense that they are utterly incapable of doing violence to another human being. Most people will go through their entire adult lives without ever comitting - or even witnessing - an act of violence (not counting TV etc, which isn't "real" violence)
Sadly, there are Wolves, who prey on Sheep. Wolves seek out sheep to fuck them up, because they know that sheep cannot protect themselves.
Happily, there are also Sheepdogs; those who place themselves between the Sheep and the Wolves.
But to a Sheep, a Sheepdog looks a lot like a Wolf - same shape, same teeth, same snarl. So sheep are very uncomfortable around sheepdogs, because sheepdogs trade in violence, and it is violence (not intent) that most upsets sheep.
Sheep are always trying to make sheepdogs more like sheep, even when that is counter to their own long-term interests, because the ideal SheepWorld is a nice, safe, non-violent bubble where nothing bad ever happens to anybody.
So Sheepdogs must remain vigilant and active - not only counter the Wolves, but also counter the Sheep. It falls to the Sheepdogs of the world to prevent the sheep from defanging their own protectors.
As an aside, there's a local radio commercial here that just drives me absolutely insane - it's an ad for a jewelry chain, in which a soccer mom (with the most teeth-gratingly patronizing voice ever) congradulates her husband on his "evolution" - he packs lunches, he makes playdates, he cleans the house - but when it comes to buying gifts, he still sucks. So go to Jeweler X and don't screw it up this time. Oh, and don't forget to pick up the daughter and get her (irony alert!) to Tae Kwon Do by 5:00....
This is a PRIME example of the sheep trying to sheep-ify the sheepdogs.
But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?
"Venture Captialist" - someone who fronts money to startup companies or other risky ventures in the hope that their idea will hit big and the VC will reap a huge reward; or
"Victoria Cross" - the highest Commonwealth award for valour in the face of the enemy; or
"Viet Cong" - the insergent wing of the North Vietnamese Army, active in South Vietnam during the Vietnam war.
Jon Stewart takes the time to learn about his guest's point of view BEFORE the show happened.
Last night he had on a political science professor with a book to shill, "The J Curve".
And it was immediately obvious that Jon had READ THE BOOK, or at least enough of it to grasp the central thesis. He played ignorant a couple of times (for laughs) but he clearly was keeping up with the guest and knew what he was talking about.
Do you think any of the Fox News pundits ever do that? Can you see Bill O'Reily (say) going to a screening of Al Gore's global warming movie and actually paying attention to it?
Seriously, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert give me hope that there still exists intelligence and rational thought in America. They should both run on the same Presidential ticket.
I **LOVE** Perl 5. It is, without question, the most useful and most powerful programming language I have ever encountered, and that includes C, C++, various assemblers, Pascal, FORTRAN, Java, REXX, Ada, Python... all the languages of the week. I keep coming back to perl because it is so damn useful and because it is so elegant (when used correctly - bad perl is really, really bad).
My productivity would be a tenth what it is today if not for perl. I use it for everything from quick and dirty hacks all the way to major enterprise support applications.
And I've seen Larry give "State of the Onion" presentations before, in person - and he's brilliant. Perl5 is the masterpiece of a genius.
But Perl6... I don't get it. It seems like so much has been changed, just for the sake of change. If Perl5 is English, then Perl6 feels like Esperanto.
I see no compelling reason to ever switch to 6 from 5 - unlike the switch from 4 to 5, which added a ton of real improvements.
Slashdot Mirror
...the STRENGTH of the compulsion.
We are all, every day, faced with our own little compulsions imposed upon us by our own particular brain chemistry and billions of years of evolution. Almost all of them can be resisted with minimal application of willpower.
But there exist things that can grab ahold of and twist your brain chemistry in such a way that willpower is no longer the answer. Addiction comes to mind - those that are well and truly addicted to alcohol or crack or heroin or whatever will do ANYTHING to get their next hit, and their willpower is insufficient to do otherwise.
Depending on the nature of that tumor, it could make children attractive - one would hope, resistible by anybody with reasonable amounts of willpower. Or it could literally COMPEL someone to carry out acts of child abuse; he could have no choice at all in the matter.
Our brains - and by extension, our personalities - are a mixture of free will and deterministic responses to biochemistry. When someone exercises the "free will" portion of their personality and CHOOSES to do something horrible, then it is right and just to punish them for it. If, however, someone is the helpless tool of their biochemistry, then punishing them isn't just unjust, it is also ineffective.
And yes, determining the line between "I did it" and "the devil (in the form of my biochemistry) made me do it" is difficult to say the least, no more so than because we're talking about a range, not two discrete points - how LOUD are the voices in my head?
Given my experience with addicts, I can say that your "worst case #1" is not only possible, but happens in the wild. There's a reason why addiction is considered a disease.
DG
I should certainly hope that society is NOT a "MIME trying to survive".
Those guys can't even get out of the bloody invisible box - doesn't bode well for society's survivability quotient.
DG
For those who have never done CAD:
:)
AutoCAD is a 2D drawing tool with functions optimized for the production of scale drawings. It is an extension of the old T-Square And Pencil technique into the computer; a sort of Adobe Illustrator tuned to drafting.
It is very, very good at this, and I found it (given that I had a little old skool drafting experience) fairly easy to adapt to.
But at its core, you're still projecting 3D objects into 2D or psudo 3D (orthometric projections) using the draftsman's brain as the projection device.
Enter Solidworks.
Solidworks is a parametric 3D modeling package. You create the object in 3D, and then the software generates your 2D drawings from it. No more construction lines. No more mismatched views.
There have been 3D modelers before (VariCAD for Linux isn't bad) but Solidworks takes it a step farther - it remembers every step in the construction of an object, and every step is tunable. Where past 3D modelers used Boolean operations to construct their shapes - but then the shape was fixed - Solidworks allows you to change the parameters of every operation at any time. Punch a hole through an object, but then discover it is the wrong size? No problem - just select the hole in the object's construction tree, and change its size.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It has revolutionized mechanical drawing, to the point where it is inconceivable that I'd ever use AutoCAD ever again. Solidworks is one of the few software packages I've ever used that just left me dumbfounded in amazement at how powerful, easy, and intuitive it is.
And no, I don't work for them.
DG
Yeah, I vaguely remember the AI "coming back to life" and playing GTNW against itself (in simulation) and losing every time, then deciding the "only way to win is not to play".
But that doesn't make any difference; the AI playing "for real" or the actual human controllers seeing the game data on their screens and assuming they were seeing a real strike - the end result is the same thing: a real counterstrike launched in response to fake (simulated) data.
And while the process to get to that point is nowhere near as facile as depicted in the film, the concept is at least plausible.
But when you change the nature of the system to a counter-terrorism, there's no longer anyone to launch missiles against - thus, no consequences for duping either real humans or a controlling AI that a strike was ongoing.
Hard for a good movie to spring from a dumb premise....
DG
The premise behind the original - for those too young to remember - is (abridged) that a hacker breaks in to a NORAD computer and proceeds to run a wargame simulation of an ICBM strike on the continental US. The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched.
That's probably not an exact synopsis of the plot, but it's close enough to make no nevermind.
Now in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, which relies on a massive counterstrike against the initiator BEFORE his missiles arrive at their targets, this is at least a plausible scenario - close enough to allow sufficient suspension of disbelief to allow the movie to work. It's true that these command centres were manned 24/7 watching for any sign of an incoming strike, and that the time window between detecting the strike and making the decision to initiate the counterstrike was very small. It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.
But we aren't in that game anymore. There is no longer a 20 minute window in which someone has to decide to launch a nuclear counterstrike based on a fairly narrow band of incoming data. No terrorist group - indeed, very few nations - are capable of the "mutual" in "Mutually Assured Destruction".
So a Homeland Security central command centre starts reporting dozens to hundreds of terrorist strikes on US Territory? So what? Response will be in the hands of local Guard units and law enforcement/emergency responders, not a remote C3S cell. The worst that could happen is that troops are mobilized needlessly - and there's time to see if the purported strikes show up on CNN.
The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.
That doesn't bode well for the success of the movie, methinks.
DG
In fact, I'm going to teach that to our guys tonight.
Who'd've thunk I'd pick up a tactical tip from Slashdot?
DG
Actually, the modern US Army is a surprisingly agile and adaptive force. It's not like the Cold War Army of the 80s that used mass and raw firepower as a replacement for training.
We used to joke about how dumb the Yanks were - nice guys, but dumb as rocks. Things like the Dragon ATGM manual being a comic book didn't help that impression very much. Yank training was very focussed on accomplishing a specific job for a specific soldier, with little to no contingency training. Compare against Canadian doctrine, which was to train everybody as broadly as possible so their soldiers were more flexible and adaptive.
The Yanks aren't quite there yet - there's simply to many of them to train to that level - but in the last 5 years or so, they've come up with all sorts of great innovations in the training process such that they get maximum bang for their training buck. We're adopting Yank training techniques left, right, and centre - because they work, and work well. It is not unheard of for a lesson learned in the field to be incorporated into the next applicable training course a week later.
And while there is still that Yank tendency to swat flies with nukes, they ARE learning - go Google "the strategic corporal" and "three block war" for examples.
They don't have the experience with protracted insurgency that the Brits do (thanks to Northern Ireland and the IRA) but that is coming as well.
And not everything is unconventional war these days. The operations in the Kandahar area the last couple of months were classic combat team in the advance, fighting large enemy fighting formations in the field. Army on army combat has NOT gone away.
The American failures are with political leadership, not with the troops on the ground.
DG
One of the things that surprised me when I upgraded to an HD connection was just how much "HD" content was really just upconverted "regular" video.
There is very little programming that is really honestly truly 720p/1080p - but the stuff that is, is spectacular.
I agree with you that a 480p DVD looks pretty damn good on an HD screen, but real shot-in-HD content is a whole lot better.
What I'm afraid of with Blu-Ray/HDVD is a similar problem - is the content actually generated in higher resolutions, or is it just a really good upconvert of lower-res source material?
DG
Amazingly, I've got all those books on my shelf. Good list.
Allow me to add to your list:
"On Combat" by Col Grossman. Where "On Killing" is analysis, "On Combat" is tactics - how to deal with the physiological and psychological consequences of being called upon to deal deadly force. A must read for any soldier, cop, EMT tech, but a good read for everybody else. Col Grossman also has an audio presentation of the stuff in this book, it is fascinating stuff.
"The Face of Battle" and "The Mask of Command" by John Keegan. Analysis of leadership and command in a military setting. Keegan is very readable and has tons of insights - and his other works, mostly histories, are also excellent. An oeuvre well worth perusing.
"Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card and "Starship Troopers" by Heinlein - probably the best books on the practical application of personal leadership skills and the development of same ever written. Seriously. Grok these books and you learn how to lead men.
DG
Dude, how the hell are you?
:D
Good to see some of the old stalwarts are still kicking around.
Heh, I found my copy of Deathbed Vigil just the other day.
BTW, I tried running BLAZEMONGER! in emulation a couple of weeks back, and it set fire to my computer and knocked up my cat.
DG
Marc Barrett? Is that you?
DG
(old time comp.sys.amiga guys will get the joke)
Starship Troopers is brilliant stuff; utterly unlike the irony-laden movie of the same name.
Glory Road is a happy and entertaining romp with a nice twist at the end that'll get you thinking.
Friday is very similar; a good yarn with some things that'll get you thinking.
And I also like J.O.B. as a morality play of sorts.
Try those ones on for size and then report back if you've changed your mind.
DG
I can't speak for all signatories, but in *my* Army, the Convention is taken very VERY seriously with enormous penalties for those who violate it.
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
DG
While there is still a ways to go, the US Military (and most other Western militaries) are in the process of doing just that.
Google for the term "strategic corporal" for some interesting reading.
DG
Once upon a time, war was the (almost) exclusive purview of uniformed armies fighting other uniformed armies.
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
DG
In St-Jean sur Richelieu, just south of Montreal, is a place called Vitos.
Find the military college, go out the front gate, turn right, and walk about 1.2 km - it's just inside downtown. Go past the railroad spike monument and you're almost there. Big orange sign.
Hell, we've got Google Earth now.... I'm going to go with 45 18'16.88" x 73 15'06.26" Right around there.
Best. Poutine. Ever.
Order a "grosse poutine avec viande" and be prepared for a glutenous mass of pure heaven.
Tell 'em that a former CMR cadet sent you (un ancien eleve officier du College)
DG
18145
As much as I am in favour of gun control (I am Canadian, after all) it only takes a few minutes of searching to find out that the majority of guns in the US (and Canada for that matter) will *never* be used on another person.
Some are for sporting purposes, others for recreational hunting, still others for collecting or similar hobbies, and the rest are more like touchstones, representing some sort of assurance of personal security, even though they will never be used as intended, and most would find themselves unable to use them should the opportunity actually arise.
I don't have any figures to break these down by category, and I'm afraid that any figures coming out of the NRA would be suspect... but a simple count of the number of guns extant, divided by the number of shootings per annum, shows that most are never used as weapons.
As far as the percent of GNP spent on the American defense establishment, and the worth of that money vice other potential places to spend it... this is a slippery topic that is closely tied to American partisan politics, where "my side" is always right, and "your side" is always wrong, and to hell with the merits. This makes debate likely to be counterproductive, so I'm not interested it discussing it.
I will offer, however, that I would not advocate American levels of "Defence" spending for MY country, and that engaging in a protracted military adventure where there was no credible threat, at the expense of an operation where there WAS a credible threat and a job of national reconstruction yet to be completed (that would be Afghanistan) and in so doing squandering a huge amount of hard-won political capital, while simultaniously spending billions, was perhaps not the wisest course of action.
As far as my own country goes, I would like to see military spending increased, but only slightly. We have been commited to a venture - a noble and just one, as it turns out - but our current budget does not include sufficient funds to replace badly worn-out equipment and training for those not on operations. We need funding to match the missions, but funds in excess of that should be earmarked elsewhere. We simply do not need a fleet of aircraft carriers, $2B USD each stealth bombers, or three different latest-generation fighter aircraft.
As far as the last comment goes, we have long gone past the days of the armed forces of nation-states vying with each other for supremecy and empire. It is simply no longer acceptable for any nation-state to annex the territory of its neigbours through the use of military force; wars of conquest are quite simply over.
Modern militaries are now more about restoring order to failed states, or removing of regimes whose behaviour threatens global security - such as the Taliban in Afghanistan allowing Al Quaida to operate freely within their borders. Clearly, this could not be allowed to continue, and so military force was necessary, right, and just.
We are, however, on a hell of a learning curve here, and not everything we do is as effective as we'd like. We (the global "we") really dropped the ball in Rwanda, and in Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia, and in Somallia, and we're learning the right and wrong ways to do things. Those lessons ARE being learned, and they ARE being applied at the pointy end.
Operations like Afghanistan are NOT about conquest; there's nothing there we could possibly want anyway. They are about restoring peace and security to a land that has been too long without it, and setting the conditions for sucessful rebuilding of the country. Afghanistan has one of the shortest (if not THE shortest) life expectancies, and unbearably high infant mortality rates. That is unacceptable in this day and age, and we have a moral obligation to do something about it.
You may not believe me; you may choose to believe that there are sinister, alterior motives. Believe what you want; I know why we are doing the job, and if I thought it was sinister, I wouldn't be doing what we do.
DG
Just because he's right about one thing, doesn't mean he's right about everything....
He's wrong about video games - although I understand how he got there, based on his studies.
DG
Don't let the hoster colour your perception of the article...
OK, let's address your "A Few Good Men" example. On its face (and in its heart) it is well-founded, as the Nickleson character in the movie is indeed a sheepdog who has lost the plot and has "gone wolf" to some degree.
But notice that in the movie, it is **other sheepdogs** who bring the rogue back into line.....
That is part of the dillema of being a sheepdog. There **IS** a line beyond which you must not cross. Ultimately, you **SERVE** the sheep; you are not their masters.
Which opens up an interesting observation: consider that in the parent/child relationship, there exists a kind of sheepdog/sheep relationship; the parent's job is to protect the child from harm.
Is it not then the case that a parent that seeks to protect the child by preventing it from playing "tag" might be similar to the rule of a military elite "for the good of the citizens"? Is not the parent in this case the one shouting "you can't HANDLE the truth"?
DG
As I said in another response, any analogy can only be stretched so far, and the problem of how to deal with sheepdogs who "go wolf" (or with wolves who misrepresent themselves as sheepdogs) is real and non-trivial. So we are in agreement there.
As far as being "spiteful" (I would have used "disdainful" myself) of the "ideal world where nobody ever gest hurt"... that is not the case at all. Certainly MY ideal world is one where sheepdogs are unecessary, as there are no more wolves, and nobody ever WANTS to be a wolf.
But my observation is that that ideal world is a long, long, long way off, and (human nature being what it is, only a couple of million years removed from us swinging in the trees) maybe we'll never get there. So we need to be actively promoting sheepdog production, and otherwise building up the skills for living in the real world of bumps, scrapes, setbacks, and the occasional wolf.
You build up immunity to something by exposing yourself to controllable doses of the pathogen or stressor. If you spend your entire life inside a climate-controlled, sterile bubble, then the first time you get exposed to the tiniest disease, it kills you (or at least has a much greater effect on you) Same deal with any stressor. You don't help kids by isolating them from life, you help kids by mitigating their exposure to extreme stressors and helping them deal with the minor ones.
BTW, I'm not an American either... I assume you're a Finn? Well with your universal conscription example, you proved my point - you have had some degree of exposure to sheepdoggery yourself, and so are better prepared to deal with life than someone who has not had that opportunity.
DG
The problem with analogy is that it is, at its heart, simplification of a complex problem - and with simplification comes a loss of detail.
So one needs to be careful with extrapolation of analogy.
One should not take the analogy as recommendation of rule by elites; the "who watches the watchmen" problem is very real and non-trivial. To put it in terms of the original analogy: Sheepdogs are human, and sometimes they can morph into Wolves. So some of the distrust of Sheepdogs by Sheep is well founded. There is a balace to be struck between the Sheepdog's desire for more power and effectiveness in the fight against the Wolves, and the Sheep's desire to limit the destructive potential of the Sheepdog, should he "go Wolf".
Incidentally, although Col Grossman's work was originally on soldiers and soldiering, he has expanded his definition of who constitutes a "sheepdog" to include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and others who put themselves in harm's way in the defense of others.
That work, by the way, is based on intense, SCIENTIFIC studies on the PHYSIOLOGICAL (note the emphasis) effects of stress and violence on human beings, both actors and victims. He has discovered, for example, that the fight-or-flight mechanism is far more sophisticated than first suspected, and while there are certain universals, many people have different reactions. It is not at all unusual for someone involved in a deadly force encounter to experience a slowing down of time, an increase in visual acuity, a decrease in hearing perception (to the point where they don't hear their own gun go off) and a loss of bowel/bladder control.
Read the books, they are full of great SCIENCE and make fascinating reading.
The "Sheep, Sheepdog, Wolf" analogy springs from the fact that most people have a phobic-level stress response to exposure to physical violence; not just when they are participants, but when they are observers. Most people, when backed into a corner, DO NOT bite.
But it is also possible to inoculate people against this stress; to teach them to remain functional when in mortal danger. Anybody who has gone through any sort of military basic training can attest to this.
And the converse is also true - the more you remove stress from people's daily lives, the poorer they handle stress when they ARE exposed to it. Prevent kids from playing and roughousing (within reasonable limits) and you are setting them up for fragility in later life.
Like it or not, the real world is full of bumps, setbacks, and wolves - the problem is not how to avoid the instances of them, but rather, how to handle them when they happen to you.
Finally, NO soldier is "pro war" - not one who has actually seen the elephant at least. But somebody has to stand between the monsters and the weak, and boy howdy, are there ever monsters out there.
If that's not you, fine. You are in the majority after all. My job is to protect you, not like you.
DG
This keeps coming back to the Col. Dave Grossman (On Killing, On Combat) Sheep, Wolf, Sheepdog analogy.
I'll paraphrase:
Most people are Sheep - not in the pejurative sense, but rather in the sense that they are utterly incapable of doing violence to another human being. Most people will go through their entire adult lives without ever comitting - or even witnessing - an act of violence (not counting TV etc, which isn't "real" violence)
Sadly, there are Wolves, who prey on Sheep. Wolves seek out sheep to fuck them up, because they know that sheep cannot protect themselves.
Happily, there are also Sheepdogs; those who place themselves between the Sheep and the Wolves.
But to a Sheep, a Sheepdog looks a lot like a Wolf - same shape, same teeth, same snarl. So sheep are very uncomfortable around sheepdogs, because sheepdogs trade in violence, and it is violence (not intent) that most upsets sheep.
Sheep are always trying to make sheepdogs more like sheep, even when that is counter to their own long-term interests, because the ideal SheepWorld is a nice, safe, non-violent bubble where nothing bad ever happens to anybody.
So Sheepdogs must remain vigilant and active - not only counter the Wolves, but also counter the Sheep. It falls to the Sheepdogs of the world to prevent the sheep from defanging their own protectors.
As an aside, there's a local radio commercial here that just drives me absolutely insane - it's an ad for a jewelry chain, in which a soccer mom (with the most teeth-gratingly patronizing voice ever) congradulates her husband on his "evolution" - he packs lunches, he makes playdates, he cleans the house - but when it comes to buying gifts, he still sucks. So go to Jeweler X and don't screw it up this time. Oh, and don't forget to pick up the daughter and get her (irony alert!) to Tae Kwon Do by 5:00....
This is a PRIME example of the sheep trying to sheep-ify the sheepdogs.
But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?
DG
Although a quick Google can answer most of them.
Anyway, "VC" can be:
"Venture Captialist" - someone who fronts money to startup companies or other risky ventures in the hope that their idea will hit big and the VC will reap a huge reward; or
"Victoria Cross" - the highest Commonwealth award for valour in the face of the enemy; or
"Viet Cong" - the insergent wing of the North Vietnamese Army, active in South Vietnam during the Vietnam war.
DG
Jon Stewart takes the time to learn about his guest's point of view BEFORE the show happened.
Last night he had on a political science professor with a book to shill, "The J Curve".
And it was immediately obvious that Jon had READ THE BOOK, or at least enough of it to grasp the central thesis. He played ignorant a couple of times (for laughs) but he clearly was keeping up with the guest and knew what he was talking about.
Do you think any of the Fox News pundits ever do that? Can you see Bill O'Reily (say) going to a screening of Al Gore's global warming movie and actually paying attention to it?
Seriously, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert give me hope that there still exists intelligence and rational thought in America. They should both run on the same Presidential ticket.
DG
I'm completely on board with this attitude.
I **LOVE** Perl 5. It is, without question, the most useful and most powerful programming language I have ever encountered, and that includes C, C++, various assemblers, Pascal, FORTRAN, Java, REXX, Ada, Python... all the languages of the week. I keep coming back to perl because it is so damn useful and because it is so elegant (when used correctly - bad perl is really, really bad).
My productivity would be a tenth what it is today if not for perl. I use it for everything from quick and dirty hacks all the way to major enterprise support applications.
And I've seen Larry give "State of the Onion" presentations before, in person - and he's brilliant. Perl5 is the masterpiece of a genius.
But Perl6... I don't get it. It seems like so much has been changed, just for the sake of change. If Perl5 is English, then Perl6 feels like Esperanto.
I see no compelling reason to ever switch to 6 from 5 - unlike the switch from 4 to 5, which added a ton of real improvements.
DG