“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
―Philip Freneau
.
And by a prudent flight and cunning save A life which valour could not, from the grave. A better buckler I can soon regain, But who can get another life again?
Archilochus
"For instance, one could assume fully independent probabilities for each molecule and demonstrate that a specific arrangement into increasingly ordered structures would not be observed within a time much larger than the current age of the universe. So far so good: there are no experiments, to date, observing the emergence of living organisms under our experimental setup."
\\btw - Is the original sin of the Bible the inability to follow the dictates of godlike authoritarian figures (like, "stay away from that tree of knowledge of good & evil and do what I tell you?)
Yep.
And our true gawd is Satan... who is MORE powerful then Gawd. ;-P
Or that is just a result of historical disgration/lost in translation problem.
Because in Bible there is NO Satan... as own name. Only "saatan" -- plural. And technical. Name of jewish cop. Or detective. ;-)
I never really got the whole angels and devils thing. I started to read Milton's "Paradise Lost" once... but didn't get very far. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a real struggle, too.
Or, you'd better start diplomatic negotiation... with that houthi guys??? To not allow E-S-C-A-L-A-T-I-O-N. (who is that bright dude/dudette in Bi-den office which can spell it? ;-))
Is WWIII about to happen? Maybe. But America isn't going to end it "happily ever after" like WWII again. The world will have to fester in its own crapulence.
Mama and son, very curious and inquiring kid, going by a street and happen to see how male doggy do that thing to a female one.
"What they doing?" -- asking kid.
Mama trying to explain, that dangling matter as such: "you see son, that's just one doggy decided to slack off... while other doggy used that chance to work out".
"I see" -- sighed little son.
"Oh, and what you see" -- asked relived mama.
"It's not wise to slack off... it will allow someone to decide to work out on you" -- answered wisen up man. ;-P
Why Die for Danzig? (French: Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?) is a pro-appeasement anti-war French political slogan created on the eve of World War II.[1] Article
The phrase originated in the title of an article ("Mourir pour Dantzig?") by the French Neo-Socialist writer Marcel Déat, published on May 4, 1939 in the Parisian newspaper L'Œuvre [fr].[2][3] The article concerned one of the Nazi German ultimatums to the Second Polish Republic, regarding the demand to transfer control of the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk) to Germany.[4] In the article, Déat argued in favor of appeasement.[5] He asserted that France had no interest in defending Poland, and that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler would be satisfied after receiving the territory he (rightfully, according to Déat[6]) demanded. He accused the Poles of warmongering and dragging Europe into a war.[6] Déat argued that Frenchmen should not be called to die paying for irresponsible Polish politicking,[6] and expressed doubts about whether Poland would be able to fight for any significant amount of time.[3] "To fight alongside our Polish friends for the common defense of our territories, of our property, of our liberties," wrote Déat, "this is a perspective that one can courageously envisage, if it should contribute to maintaining the peace. But to die for Danzig, no!" ("Mais mourir pour Dantzig, non !") [7]
USS Reuben James On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why England Slept First edition Author John F. Kennedy Subject Buildup of Nazi German power and appeasement of Nazi Germany by the United Kingdom Genre Thesis Publisher Wilfred Funk Publication date 1940 Followed by Profiles in Courage
Why England Slept (1940) is the published version of a thesis written by John F. Kennedy in his senior year at Harvard College. Its title is an allusion to Winston Churchill's 1938 book While England Slept, which also examined the buildup of German power.[1] Kennedy's book examines the failures of the British government to take steps to prevent World War II and its initial lack of response to Adolf Hitler's threats of war.
Rather than castigating the popular appeasement policy that the British government then pursued, it is notable for taking the uncommon stance that if Great Britain had confronted Nazi Germany earlier it would have been far more disastrous for her than the delay caused by the appeasement policies of Chamberlain and other British leaders.
Kennedy is telling future policy makers that "foreign threats cannot be dealt with by ignoring them or wishing them away ... they must be confronted by clearheaded and informed calculation".[6]
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy __ 156, with a losssss of 115 livvvves. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was esssscorting Convvvvoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
tech·nol·o·gy /tekˈnäləjē/ noun the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry. "advances in computer technology" machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge. "it will reduce the industry's ability to spend money on new technology" the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
Broadly, if you take a motte and bailey approach to definitions. The hardware is usually the limiting factor (motte), but if you make the software re-programmable, you can usually juice the results post-launch.
Do people usually say "management technology" or just management to describe their approaches/ ideologies/ techniques?
\\Broadly, if you take a motte and bailey approach to definitions.
Not at all.
That is just, definition you gave devoid of inner meaning.
Like say "stone it's an opaque figure with rough surface"... but it do not tell about WEIGHT of it, or what minarals it consist, or... how hard you can stumble uppon it... and how your foot toe will hart from it. ;-)
\\but if you make the software re-programmable, you can usually juice the results post-launch.
If you'd be programmer... you'd know that SOFTware -- it's misnomer. It EVEN more carved in stone... than hardware.
With hardware... you always can to file it a little. Or otherwise, add some more metal. Well, result will not be pretty. But still, it's possible.
While... we cannot change that FACT that Byte have 8 bits. For example.
\\Do people usually say "management technology" or just management to describe their approaches/ ideologies/ techniques?
Dunno. You say.
I have NO experience of working in environment... where it would be THAT severe. ;-)
\\"Alchemy" implies something a little outside of "scientific applications". A little "magic" maybe. Paranormal activity...
Mostly. "Let's don't tell anyone... how stupid we was, and almost screwed it all up". ;-P
/Like say "stone it's an opaque figure with rough surface"... but it do not tell about WEIGHT of it, or what minarals it consist, or... how hard you can stumble uppon it... and how your foot toe will hart from it. ;-)
....what minerals it consist. In this case, "elements".
Elements often are stacked together with other elements to form minerals. Minerals are simply a collection of one or more elements that are stacked neatly together in a form called a crystal structure.
Elements have families as well, known as isotopes. Isotopes are members of a family of an element that all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. The number of protons in a nucleus determines the element's atomic number on the Periodic Table.
I argue atom, you argue nucleus, I argue proton, you argue quark.
We retreat from the "bailey" into ever smaller mottes....
\\Elements often are stacked together with other elements to form minerals. Minerals are simply a collection of one or more elements that are stacked neatly together in a form called a crystal structure.
Naaah.
Did you knew that? That crystals... "grow"???
\\We retreat from the "bailey" into ever smaller mottes....
"wheels within wheels within wheels"
Or... turtles all way down... if you prefer. ;-)
\\Each one driven by the process for forming an "assembly"...(assembly theory)
"One that comes to mind is the assertion that we have a free market in credit. The broad assertion in the motte is saying that the Fed is not really controlling interest rates. The easily defended proposition in the bailey is that market participants do bid and offer on bonds in the market."
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The Conduct of Life: VIII. Beauty Was never form and never face So sweet to SEYD as only grace Which did not slumber like a stone But hovered gleaming and was gone. Beauty chased he everywhere, In flame, in storm, in clouds of air. He smote the lake to feed his eye With the beryl beam of the broken wave; He flung in pebbles well to hear The moment's music which they gave. Oft pealed for him a lofty tone From nodding pole and belting zone. He heard a voice none else could hear From centred and from errant sphere. The quaking earth did quake in rhyme, Seas ebbed and flowed in epic chime. In dens of passion, and pits of wo, He saw strong Eros struggling through, To sun the dark and solve the curse, And beam to the bounds of the universe. While thus to love he gave his days In loyal worship, scorning praise, How spread their lures for him, in vain, Thieving Ambition and paltering Gain! He thought it happier to be dead, To die for Beauty, than live for bread.
The spiral tendency of vegetation infects education also. Our books approach very slowly the things we most wish to know. What a parade we make of our science, and how far off, and at arm's length, it is from its objects! Our botany is all names, not powers: poets and romancers talk of herbs of grace and healing; but what does the botanist know of the virtues of his weeds? The geologist lays bare the strata, and can tell them all on his fingers: but does he know what effect passes into the man who builds his house in them? what effect on the race that inhabits a granite shelf? what on the inhabitants of marl and of alluvium? We should go to the ornithologist with a new feeling, if he could teach us what the social birds say, when they sit in the autumn council, talking together in the trees. The want of sympathy makes his record a dull dictionary. His result is a dead bird. The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relations to Nature; and the skin or skeleton you show me, is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington. The naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power,--that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.
When speaking in words with their definitions, we omit the "powers". We speak only of the "dead assembled bird".
Each assembly required a process which caused it. We usually speak only of the final product in our definitions. The "satellite", and not the process which built it. The "formal" cause... and not the steps or products between states of assembly.
Aristotle generally prioritized the formal cause as the determinant of identity. The Ship of Theseus would maintain the same formal cause throughout the replacement of its planks, whether the planks were replaced while at sea or on land. Thus, for Aristotle, the original ship is always the Ship of Theseus.
We should approach the investigation of every kind of animal without being ashamed, since in each one of them there is something natural and something beautiful. The absence of chance and the serving of ends are found in the works of nature especially. And the end, for the sake of which a thing has been constructed or has come to be, belongs to what is beautiful.
— Aristotle, "On the Parts of Animals" (645a 21–26, Book I, Part 5.[29])
\\Cy-Borg. What changes humanity is the "tech" and "media".
Naaah.
Stories told around fireplace.
For children to listen. Became believing em. Then, making em true. ;-)
\\...you've set me to "rambling mode"... as usual. ;)
If it gaves you pleasure?
My pleasure. :-)
\\When speaking in words with their definitions, we omit the "powers". We speak only of the "dead assembled bird".
Hah???
How then dead word from dead leafs... was able to make me feel... so alive???
\\Each assembly required a process which caused it.
It seems...
Yeah.
Like a KEY to a Unknown Lock.
\\ The "satellite", and not the process which built it.
Ough. That...
That would need that idiom -- to get banana one need to take gorilla... and whole jungles with it. ;-)
Means... we are like that motes... in amber. Frizzed into, inside time and place circumstances.
\\Aristotle generally prioritized the formal cause as the determinant of identity. The Ship of Theseus would maintain the same formal cause throughout the replacement of its planks, whether the planks were replaced while at sea or on land. Thus, for Aristotle, the original ship is always the Ship of Theseus.
Ancient Wizdoms... tend to grow inprecise, or even outdated... with time.
What is Microsoft Windows??? ;-)
Is it 3.11 for Work Groups? ;-P Or maybe "tiger in your computer" 95
Everlasting XP?
7, 9, 10, 87878%$$#$T%$????? :-)))))
Or... even BETTER -- what is Linux? Is it UNIX, Unix... or better? ;-P
\\So??? Where is motte??? And where is bailey???
\\In their "relation"?
Yeah. There is TWO. And they are destinguishable.
But... which is which?
What is Left? And what is Right? (if you don't know from what side you looking ;-P)
Books were always a man's "cybernetic" tech extensions. He committed his "memories" to something "outside himself" that like "genes" could be passed down to subsequent generations. Their weakness was that of the written word, that unlike the spoken word, cannot answer for itself, explain "what has changed" or be queried...
Clothes... the "technics" of personal temperature control and comfort, of concealing my fat body, or lack of muscles. Or as Plato would call it, "attiring"
Those were the "good ole days" when I was working at Martin Marietta and reading books like "US Submarine Operations in WWII", Jane's Fighting Ships, and the Clancy classics like "Hunt for Red October".
I never read Air War stories though. I guess that the proposal to build a NATO Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) system didn't tickle the funny bone as much... :(
Hah... so my brain is not that useless, still. Somebody else found it too. :-)))
Gregory says: October 14, 2019 at 11:05 am
In the following, you switched motte and baily.
One that comes to mind is the assertion that we have a free market in credit. The broad assertion in the motte is saying that the Fed is not really controlling interest rates. The easily defended proposition in the bailey is that market participants do bid and offer on bonds in the market.
The psychology of Selling crap does not always retreat to the most relevant or even secure motte. Is it in fact the board’s job to supply the diversity of opinion needed to develop processes, products, and human capital structures? More compelling is that boards should represent what diversity arises among shareholders so that it fulfills its oversight duties. I read board membership lists as indication of who the company feels it is beholden unto, not as an indication of how it runs its business.
Maybe motte and bailey was too simple an illustrative example. Maybe the mobius strip or crosscap or klein bottle is better. You should watch the Zizek video. It's describes the 4D alchemy of language and subjectivity better. It's hard to capture the reality of space-time in terms soley of 3D space. It ignores the time dimension, just as talking about time ignores the space dimension.
\\Those were the "good ole days" when I was working at Martin Marietta and reading books like "US Submarine Operations in WWII", Jane's Fighting Ships, and the Clancy classics like "Hunt for Red October".
Well... I dunno, is there someone who research possibilities with modern techs???
Like fleet of some toy-submarines... that can attach itself... to a fleet of oil tankers, and bring USA on you knees, for example.
And you know what could be ONLY hope to prevent it, isn't it? ;-)
\\Maybe motte and bailey was too simple an illustrative example. Maybe the mobius strip or crosscap or klein bottle is better. You should watch the Zizek video. It's describes the 4D alchemy of language and subjectivity better.
Yep.
4D entities -- that is immediately needed part of that Systems Engineering I know...
Well... computer programs are such entities too.
\\ It ignores the time dimension, just as talking about time ignores the space dimension.
Well... I have my theory -- that our thinking possible exactly because of that -- our audial cortex working with straightforward structure of 1-dimentional sound/language/text...
which allows as to find some clue in that unintelligible mess of 3D, or even 4D and 5G of all other sensoric information waterfalls...
\\My bad. I thought you were paraphrasing LEM wisdoms.
He using wide brush... but his aim is very pointed.
\\Well... I dunno, is there someone who research possibilities with modern techs???
Well, DiBi bragging that he is member of something called NIAK.
But... with him being part of it -- it is obvious why things like 9/11 happaned. (while airplane ramming into skyscraper was shown in a movie, if I recall it right?)
\\Like RAND or SRI? War games all the time?
Movies again.
Like that with
Escape Plan is a 2013 American prison action thriller film starring Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and co-starring Jim Caviezel, 50 Cent, Vinnie Jones, Vincent D'Onofrio and Amy Ryan.[5] It was directed by Swedish filmmaker Mikael Håfström, and written by Miles Chapman and Jason Keller (under the anagram pen-name 'Arnell Jesko').[6] The first film to pair up Stallone and Schwarzenegger as co-leads,[7] it follows Stallone's character Ray Breslin, a lawyer turned prison security tester who is incarcerated in the world's most secret and secure prison, and recruits fellow inmate Emil Rottmayer, portrayed by Schwarzenegger, to stage a breakout. The film is the first installment of the Escape Plan film series.
But idea... I recall such a scifi novella from your 70th, maybe...
I only really worked with one directly. And yes, he was very smart. But I guess you could say that his particular "expertise" was in "risk management."
More about that Multi-Path... on example of sending probe(s) to another star(s). ;-)
As we agreed only sensible way -- use technological seed able to find and utilize local resources. But, let's postpone HOW to achieve that, for now. And turn to most basic facet of it -- mass of that seed. If it'll be a grain of sand size -- we could start sending it right away even with our current techs and abilities(with some rail gun? ;-)). For the very least inside our own Solar system.
If it'll be ONE TON... that would be nearly impossible -- to send it to other stars. While still possible locally.
If it'll be THOUSAND TONS... we have NO means to do that. So far as we can, how much? 100 tons to rise up to the orbit? In one piece.
See?
And there is much much more of such parameters -- energy sources, raw resources, ability to recycle... and etc, and etc, and etc...
Basicly, what I trying to say here can be presented as State Space.
What is it?
For example let's ask a question -- how much human can carry, and with which speed? It can be showed graphically. Weight |\ |..\ |....\ |......\ |.........\ ----------------------- Speed Easy to see -- while max speed (like 10m/s of sprinter) can be achieved when weight is less. And more weight will mean being slower.
And... we can add more info to that graph -- human on bicycle, and it'll give more speed, but less weight. Or we can give human a carriage, and it will increase max weight... though reduce speed.
Or... we can give something with OWN motor...
Which mean... there is "hidden dimensions", like Time and Ingenuity -- with can change what we can achieve...
So.
We can define our GOAL as such many-multi-dimentional point... and even if that point is not in a space of our CURRENT technological reach. Still we can see/find a way how we can go there. ;-)
Unsolicited proposals don't have money sitting around waiting to be applied to them. The money's being allocated to programs coming down the NSF pipeline and incorporated into the individual agency strategic plans as part of the normal/ regular budgeting process.
So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best.
/More about that Multi-Path... on example of sending probe(s) to another star(s). ;-) As we agreed only sensible way -- use technological seed able to find and utilize local resources. But, let's postpone HOW to achieve that, for now. And turn to most basic facet of it -- mass of that seed. If it'll be a grain of sand size -- we could start sending it right away even with our current techs and abilities(with some rail gun? ;-)). For the very least inside our own Solar system. If it'll be ONE TON... that would be nearly impossible -- to send it to other stars. While still possible locally. If it'll be THOUSAND TONS... we have NO means to do that. So far as we can, how much? 100 tons to rise up to the orbit? In one piece. See? And there is much much more of such parameters -- energy sources, raw resources, ability to recycle... and etc, and etc, and etc... Basicly, what I trying to say here can be presented as State Space. What is it? For example let's ask a question -- how much human can carry, and with which speed? It can be showed graphically. Weight |\ |..\ |....\ |......\ |.........\ ----------------------- Speed Easy to see -- while max speed (like 10m/s of sprinter) can be achieved when weight is less. And more weight will mean being slower. and shows And... we can add more info to that graph -- human on bicycle, and it'll give more speed, but less weight. Or we can give human a carriage, and it will increase max weight... though reduce speed. Or... we can give something with OWN motor... Which mean... there is "hidden dimensions", like Time and Ingenuity -- with can change what we can achieve... So. We can define our GOAL as such many-multi-dimentional point... and even if that point is not in a space of our CURRENT technological reach. Still we can see/find a way how we can go there. ;-)
Sounds, to a dummy like me, like a very complex neural net problem with state-space parameters for time, money, etc. for optimizing a solution. You proposing to build it? Build a 3-4-5+ node model with a small R&D grant and do a demo. Then scale it up. Pitch it to a small AI start-up, or to government directly. If it's clever, who knows? Make a YouTube that omits the proprietary details, and the investors might beat a path to your door. As Barnum said, "The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it" and "without publicity a terrible thing happens: nothing."
...and no, it's not a motte and bailey problem. I'm not sure what kind of problem it is. It's likely one more complicated than I'd ever care to attempt to solve (infinite parameters). But then again, there's little element of "subjectivity" (ie - Klein bottle problem) in it (except the "limiting of parameters") unless you care to make it so.
Let's assume that we have just a human sprinter, for now. And ask -- Can we deliver 10 kg at top speed?
It looks impossible, isn't it? Sprinter over-weighted that much -- will not be able to show his top speed, for sure. But, what if we'd take TEN sprinters? And give each 1/10 of 10 kg. Just one kilo... might not be that big problem, isn't it?
Well. Even if that kilos need to be in one peace -- it still possible to arrange it for 10 or more people to do something with it.
What's happening here? Something "impossible" at first glance becomes possible?
Let's do something more tricky here. Like, making something move with doubled speed -- isn't that purely impossible? While only possible are ONE speed -- max speed of a sprinter.
But.
What speed is??? That is change in position... for a fixed range of time.
So. Imagine. We ordering TWO sprinters -- first to stand on the START line. And second -- 100 meters ahead. So, when they'll run. Second will appear on that place we would like to achieve as doubled speed. ;-)
So. All what remains -- to devise some system (made of some ropes and wheels, for example), which would redistribute needed speedup.
See? That is Technology -- Alchemy, that TRANSMUTATES "inconceivable" into "possible" and into "practical" even.
That is very first transistor -- from which all modern Electronics have started.
And it would need DAMN WILD imagination -- to predict that "in Future" one would be carrying in one's pocket BILLIONS of transistors, isn't it?
And slightly before that -- it was "inconceivable" even. Because idea of billions electronic tubes in a pocket... purely and definitely crazy. ;-P
But... there was ones ABLE to devise it, still. Like Turing. Because he thought about it in terms of abstract "computations". Which then could be arranged in a way. That could create Thinking Machine even.
\\So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best.
Ohh... I see many-many more problems then that. Like that, that as foreigner, I have much more problems with presenting my "unsolicited proposals". So what, better not try? ;-P
\\Sounds, to a dummy like me, like a very complex neural net problem with state-space parameters for time, money, etc. for optimizing a solution.
Well... we -- humans. Have billions of neural nets in our brain. And there over 8 billion of US.
So, what's the problem? ;-)
\\You proposing to build it?
That's just a roadmap... to what I was babbling before -- bio-like robots, space "seeds" and etc.
To show what and how IS possible. ;-)
\\...and no, it's not a motte and bailey problem.
Why not?
I trying to PROTECT big and bright idea -- sending probes to other stars. Which looks too wild and even crazy.
With much smaller... baby steps, practically. To show that it all POSSIBLE in the first place.
\\ I'm not sure what kind of problem it is. It's likely one more complicated than I'd ever care to attempt to solve (infinite parameters).
Do you know? Happen to interact? With computational mathematics? ;-)
It used practically from inception of Computers -- to solve such multi-dimentional equations -- which is either very hard, or purely impossible to solve analytically.
So... what I talking about -- it's Three Tier problematics.
On the highest floor... practically on the roof of skyscraper. Or on the top of Everest. Is that idea with "sending probes to other start". "Inconceivable". One which nobody, apart from some crazy or airheaded eggheads would only try to talk about. (Thank you, thank you, thank you)
Sure, it is not possible. To go there. In one big jump. Even if it Quantum Leap. It's not possible to leap-frog all that problems on the road. ;-P
So. There is Second Tier. And it shows -- that All The Same problems as in sending "technological seed" to other star -- is possible, and even practical, to use and test in our Solar system first.
Really. Why not send some "technological seed"... to Pluto or Neptune. So it would sprout there... and will grow into... some Space Telescope Array, for example?
Isn't that DAMN interesting. And in NASA's best interest idea? ;-)
But.
Still.
It is also -- too wild. And even crazy. WHO could I start talking with, about such ideas. And WHO would be listening... from such nobody as I am. :-(((
SO.
There is Golden and Precious First Tier. ;-)
BEFORE all that Second and Third goodies could be practical. Or even possible.
ALL THE SAME tech could be developed and trained HERE, on the Earth.
Like... in our oceans. That are pretty much are same wast and closed to our inspection... as Big Space is.
Wouldn't it be good to have that same "bio-like fish-robots"? Ability to make something like "technological seeds"... in the deeps of the ocean waters?
And etc, and etc, and etc...
Well... while holding that Second and Third Tier ideas in mind. And working in their direction too.
Well...
For now. Only practical is... Zero Tier ONLY. :-((((((
\\So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best. /Ohh... I see many-many more problems then that. Like that, that as foreigner, I have much more problems with presenting my "unsolicited proposals". So what, better not try? ;-P
They don't care where you're at unless there are International Trafficing in Arms Regulations (ITAR) problems with the country you're in (like China or North Korea). And NASA (or another agency) might get your country to fund it, and provide it "free" to us... as a State-to-State agreement... much as we "contributed" XRISM mirrors and cryo/detectors to JAXA. They cost JAXA 0, we just get access to the data faster (than non-contributing scientists).
Your problem (sprinters) only works (double speed) from the perspective of the initial conditions of both sprinters and the subjective viewpoint of the 2nd sprinter. It's a Non-sequitur from the subjective viewpoint of the first sprinter or the overall system (1/2 speed).
I do like your 3-4 multi-layered approach. But the question is, can you make a level 1 "seed" capable of surviving all the "environments" at all the layers? I've worked Venus probes.... we're lucky if we can get them to survive a few hours on the surface. 1,000 pounds pressure at 1,000 degrees F. And heat shield for Parker Solar probe... to touch the sun. The material science... and so your ocean problem environment... easy at surface... hard at bottom of Marianas trench.
I'm sure that's where all your proprietary ideas are for an "ovo". But the material science? Power? Sounds impossible to me, still. :(
Does the ovo have to maintain a certain attitude for power (pointing solar arrays)? Can it 'tumble"? How hot/cold can the materials get? etc., etc., etc.
\\I do like your 3-4 multi-layered approach. But the question is, can you make a level 1 "seed" capable of surviving all the "environments" at all the layers?
Of course -- no.
More then that -- nobody can.
Even if Musk will have all money of China, and revive and clone all brainiacs.
They would need to do that step by step approach anyway.
Cause... nobody have that info -- what that "capable of surviving all the "environments"" even mean. ;-P
You know that story about -- how Edison was making his light bulb? ;-)
He... in his manner -- just organized trying all kind of things and material.
Though... if he'd ask some profi physic/chemist... they could narrow his choice right away...
That wolfram is the most high-temperature element.
But... how that'd help Edison? There was no source of wolfram already...
\\Your problem (sprinters) only works (double speed) from the perspective of the initial conditions of both sprinters and the subjective viewpoint of the 2nd sprinter. It's a Non-sequitur from the subjective viewpoint of the first sprinter or the overall system (1/2 speed).
Of course.
But that is also what creates an opportunity. Gives some space. To do it that way, or another way.
You know, like lever -- simplest gadget of Technology.
You lose in speed... but gain in strength. And other such "magic".
Well... in a sense Kantor and Infinity are synonyms.
Sorry. :-(
Georg Cantor - Wikipedia wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Georg_Cantor Cantor's method of proof of this theorem implies the existence of an infinity of infinities. He defined the cardinal and ordinal numbers and their arithmetic. Biography · Mathematical work · Philosophy, religion, literature...
12.5 Lines and Planes whitman.edu https://www.whitman.edu › section12.05.html Lines and planes are perhaps the simplest of curves and surfaces in three dimensional space. They also will prove important as we seek to understand more ...
To define a line -- TWO points enough.
To define a plane -- THREE points needed.
Jedi's light sabre -- it's a line.
Means -- it cannot protect from THREE-pointed laserguns. ;-)
126 comments:
Usual thing...
"For instance, one could assume fully independent probabilities for each molecule and demonstrate that a specific arrangement into increasingly ordered structures would not be observed within a time much larger than the current age of the universe. So far so good: there are no experiments, to date, observing the emergence of living organisms under our experimental setup."
https://manlius.substack.com/p/whats-going-on-with-assembly-theory
I. Have hand-on experience of my own...
Some time ago... when I tried GA (genetic algorithm). It is quite simple, yet powerful thing.
Though it looks quite complex -- one need to prepare "environment", generate initial "seeds", then run it for "generations"... to achieve some result.
But... in my case result happened just on one of first steps... with half-baked code (there was NO "generations" what-so-ever).
HOW????!!!
Because I used as "environment" my other half-baked code...
And that, purely generated by random numbers generator "seed" -- matched some "errors" in my that half-baked code.
Means.
It is ONLY in that STRICT conditions -- as stated above, probability of Life is that big.
Probability to ONE SPECIFIC mechanism of Life -- is very incredibly... incredulously big.
But... WHO said that ONLY one mechanism, set of rules of Life possible????
As we know it today -- it is obviously NOT true.
There is innumerable amount of possible variants. That is only -- when one variant get "chosen", it freezes all other possibilities.
Science competition is good.... ultimately. More "randomized" choices from which to choose...
Yeah.
And now -- what do I see on CNN???
DEMN Propaganda decided to make U-turn on "poor-poor innocent Gazans"??? %))))))))
What would all goody-goody DEMN protectors will start saying???
That "that is Repugliturds who ALWAYS was protecting Palestinian terrorists"? :-)))))))))))))
\\btw - Is the original sin of the Bible the inability to follow the dictates of godlike authoritarian figures (like, "stay away from that tree of knowledge of good & evil and do what I tell you?)
Yep.
And our true gawd is Satan... who is MORE powerful then Gawd. ;-P
Or that is just a result of historical disgration/lost in translation problem.
Because in Bible there is NO Satan... as own name. Only "saatan" -- plural. And technical. Name of jewish cop. Or detective. ;-)
I never really got the whole angels and devils thing. I started to read Milton's "Paradise Lost" once... but didn't get very far. Dante's "Divine Comedy" was a real struggle, too.
So? Is it Pearl Harbour? Or still not?
Or, you'd better start diplomatic negotiation... with that houthi guys??? To not allow E-S-C-A-L-A-T-I-O-N. (who is that bright dude/dudette in Bi-den office which can spell it? ;-))
Posted it as "Angry Dude"... but it will not be disclosed... naturally.
This is 2024, and girls and women are having none of it anymore.
And what about "innocent Palestinians" "grabbing pussies" of young female AMERICANS hostages... which they doing for THREE MONTHS ALREADY.
So that hostages... if stay alive, will come with big bellies with children of the RAPE.
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
\\ I never really got the whole angels and devils thing.
Go watch "SUPERNATURAL". ;-P
Is WWIII about to happen? Maybe. But America isn't going to end it "happily ever after" like WWII again. The world will have to fester in its own crapulence.
Even if North America will be the battlefield? Well... it -- WW3, ALREADY happening.
You, USA have had a chance to avoid it... but you squandered it.
Now... you are part of the game. Want you that or not.
Well... for now, there is possibility to BECAME player... instead of being battlefield only.
But you looks like trying with all might to LOSE that chance...
and I, as foreigner, can only shake my head in dismay.
Wanna anecdote?
Mama and son, very curious and inquiring kid, going by a street and happen to see how male doggy do that thing to a female one.
"What they doing?" -- asking kid.
Mama trying to explain, that dangling matter as such: "you see son, that's just one doggy decided to slack off... while other doggy used that chance to work out".
"I see" -- sighed little son.
"Oh, and what you see" -- asked relived mama.
"It's not wise to slack off... it will allow someone to decide to work out on you" -- answered wisen up man. ;-P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Die_for_Danzig%3F
Why Die for Danzig?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why Die for Danzig? (French: Pourquoi mourir pour Dantzig?) is a pro-appeasement anti-war French political slogan created on the eve of World War II.[1]
Article
The phrase originated in the title of an article ("Mourir pour Dantzig?") by the French Neo-Socialist writer Marcel Déat, published on May 4, 1939 in the Parisian newspaper L'Œuvre [fr].[2][3] The article concerned one of the Nazi German ultimatums to the Second Polish Republic, regarding the demand to transfer control of the Free City of Danzig (now Gdańsk) to Germany.[4] In the article, Déat argued in favor of appeasement.[5] He asserted that France had no interest in defending Poland, and that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler would be satisfied after receiving the territory he (rightfully, according to Déat[6]) demanded. He accused the Poles of warmongering and dragging Europe into a war.[6] Déat argued that Frenchmen should not be called to die paying for irresponsible Polish politicking,[6] and expressed doubts about whether Poland would be able to fight for any significant amount of time.[3] "To fight alongside our Polish friends for the common defense of our territories, of our property, of our liberties," wrote Déat, "this is a perspective that one can courageously envisage, if it should contribute to maintaining the peace. But to die for Danzig, no!" ("Mais mourir pour Dantzig, non !") [7]
Then.
Just THREE month since -- Poland was attacked. While "thrown under that bus" by "allies" -- French and Britain.
What happened? They lived "happy ever after"?
Naaah.
They was attacked just a half-year after that.
Yawn.
Then.
How soon America was attacked?
USS Reuben James
On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Well...
Just like one year more.
Why England Slept
Article
Talk
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why England Slept
First edition
Author John F. Kennedy
Subject Buildup of Nazi German power and appeasement of Nazi Germany by the United Kingdom
Genre Thesis
Publisher Wilfred Funk
Publication date
1940
Followed by Profiles in Courage
Why England Slept (1940) is the published version of a thesis written by John F. Kennedy in his senior year at Harvard College. Its title is an allusion to Winston Churchill's 1938 book While England Slept, which also examined the buildup of German power.[1] Kennedy's book examines the failures of the British government to take steps to prevent World War II and its initial lack of response to Adolf Hitler's threats of war.
Rather than castigating the popular appeasement policy that the British government then pursued, it is notable for taking the uncommon stance that if Great Britain had confronted Nazi Germany earlier it would have been far more disastrous for her than the delay caused by the appeasement policies of Chamberlain and other British leaders.
Kennedy is telling future policy makers that "foreign threats cannot be dealt with by ignoring them or wishing them away ... they must be confronted by clearheaded and informed calculation".[6]
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James
On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James
Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James
On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245)
Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James
On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was escorting Convoy __ 156, with a losssss of 115 livvvves. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Funny... spamfilter not allowed this factual piece of info
USS Reuben James
On October 31, 1941, German U-boat, U-552, sank USS Reuben James (DD-245), which was esssscorting Convvvvoy HX 156, with a loss of 115 lives. Reuben James was the first U.S. Navy ship lost to enemy action during World War II.
Ha-ha-ha-ha! :-)))))))))))))))))))))
...key words "US Navy Ship". Know how US merchant vessels had been lost by then? 10.
So why didn't the US declare war before 10/31/41?
WWII ended with two mushroom clouds. How many will WWIII end with?
As I said... you ALREADY lost chance to eliminate BEFORE it started.
And to make something with it... like to win. Maybe even without mushrooms.
You, USA NEED new techs!
Example of which exactly... you know yourself. ;-)
Like... imagine WHAT would happen with desires of people like Putin, Xi, Un to fight a hot war... WITH mushrooms...
if their U-boats would suddenly start sunking... for unknown reasons. ;-)
US Tech is already 10 years ahead of what you see now. So do you have a time machine?
Whatever.
Waiting for Pearl Harbor.
And let's hope that you'd have time to retaliate after that. :-(((((
What does Ukraine want with hard-kill tech, when soft-kill and smart-power is supposed to be so Superior?
...after all, why not just follow George Soros advice from "The Alchemy of Finance"?
"Alchemy is not interested in truth like the scientific method, it's interested in operational success."
Isn't that just another definition of Technology. ;-)
tech·nol·o·gy
/tekˈnäləjē/
noun
the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"
machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge.
"it will reduce the industry's ability to spend money on new technology"
the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.
Broadly, if you take a motte and bailey approach to definitions. The hardware is usually the limiting factor (motte), but if you make the software re-programmable, you can usually juice the results post-launch.
Do people usually say "management technology" or just management to describe their approaches/ ideologies/ techniques?
"Alchemy" implies something a little outside of "scientific applications". A little "magic" maybe. Paranormal activity...
\\Broadly, if you take a motte and bailey approach to definitions.
Not at all.
That is just, definition you gave devoid of inner meaning.
Like say "stone it's an opaque figure with rough surface"... but it do not tell about WEIGHT of it, or what minarals it consist, or... how hard you can stumble uppon it... and how your foot toe will hart from it. ;-)
\\but if you make the software re-programmable, you can usually juice the results post-launch.
If you'd be programmer... you'd know that SOFTware -- it's misnomer. It EVEN more carved in stone... than hardware.
With hardware... you always can to file it a little. Or otherwise, add some more metal.
Well, result will not be pretty. But still, it's possible.
While... we cannot change that FACT that Byte have 8 bits. For example.
\\Do people usually say "management technology" or just management to describe their approaches/ ideologies/ techniques?
Dunno. You say.
I have NO experience of working in environment... where it would be THAT severe. ;-)
\\"Alchemy" implies something a little outside of "scientific applications". A little "magic" maybe. Paranormal activity...
Mostly. "Let's don't tell anyone... how stupid we was, and almost screwed it all up". ;-P
btw - You can't "file" a satellite post-launch (unless you "Hubble" service it). You can upload S/W patches though via the radio.
btw - My last mission's working fine... but the shared payload from the same rocket isn't.
NASA supplied the 2 mirrors and the Resolve package (cryo and detectors).
/Like say "stone it's an opaque figure with rough surface"... but it do not tell about WEIGHT of it, or what minarals it consist, or... how hard you can stumble uppon it... and how your foot toe will hart from it. ;-)
....what minerals it consist. In this case, "elements".
\\ btw - You can't "file" a satellite post-launch (unless you "Hubble" service it)
Are you testing me?
What shuttles was for?
\\ You can upload S/W patches though via the radio.
IF... and ONLY if, such uploads pre-built into it.
Do you not know about all that problem which arise from "software updates"?
How many you Win/Mac have betrayed you because of it? ;-)
\\....what minerals it consist. In this case, "elements".
Sorry. :-(((
For quicky typing.
But well... there is isotopes. And allotropic forms. And ways how elements form crystals -- even more.
Or... "wheels within wheels within wheels"... as Feynman have said.
...Keep retreating to the motte... when I go out onto the bailey. ;)
Hmmmm...
I think I don't get your argumant. Again.
Sorry. :-(((
https://monetary-metals.com/motte-and-bailey-fallacy-report-13-oct/
???
Elements often are stacked together with other elements to form minerals. Minerals are simply a collection of one or more elements that are stacked neatly together in a form called a crystal structure.
Elements have families as well, known as isotopes. Isotopes are members of a family of an element that all have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. The number of protons in a nucleus determines the element's atomic number on the Periodic Table.
I argue atom, you argue nucleus, I argue proton, you argue quark.
We retreat from the "bailey" into ever smaller mottes....
Each one driven by the process for forming an "assembly"...(assembly theory)
\\Elements often are stacked together with other elements to form minerals. Minerals are simply a collection of one or more elements that are stacked neatly together in a form called a crystal structure.
Naaah.
Did you knew that? That crystals... "grow"???
\\We retreat from the "bailey" into ever smaller mottes....
"wheels within wheels within wheels"
Or... turtles all way down... if you prefer. ;-)
\\Each one driven by the process for forming an "assembly"...(assembly theory)
I prefer practice. Going first. ;-)
"One that comes to mind is the assertion that we have a free market in credit. The broad assertion in the motte is saying that the Fed is not really controlling interest rates. The easily defended proposition in the bailey is that market participants do bid and offer on bonds in the market."
So??? Where is motte??? And where is bailey???
Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The Conduct of Life: VIII. Beauty
Was never form and never face
So sweet to SEYD as only grace
Which did not slumber like a stone
But hovered gleaming and was gone.
Beauty chased he everywhere,
In flame, in storm, in clouds of air.
He smote the lake to feed his eye
With the beryl beam of the broken wave;
He flung in pebbles well to hear
The moment's music which they gave.
Oft pealed for him a lofty tone
From nodding pole and belting zone.
He heard a voice none else could hear
From centred and from errant sphere.
The quaking earth did quake in rhyme,
Seas ebbed and flowed in epic chime.
In dens of passion, and pits of wo,
He saw strong Eros struggling through,
To sun the dark and solve the curse,
And beam to the bounds of the universe.
While thus to love he gave his days
In loyal worship, scorning praise,
How spread their lures for him, in vain,
Thieving Ambition and paltering Gain!
He thought it happier to be dead,
To die for Beauty, than live for bread.
The spiral tendency of vegetation infects education also. Our books approach very slowly the things we most wish to know. What a parade we make of our science, and how far off, and at arm's length, it is from its objects! Our botany is all names, not powers: poets and romancers talk of herbs of grace and healing; but what does the botanist know of the virtues of his weeds? The geologist lays bare the strata, and can tell them all on his fingers: but does he know what effect passes into the man who builds his house in them? what effect on the race that inhabits a granite shelf? what on the inhabitants of marl and of alluvium?
We should go to the ornithologist with a new feeling, if he could teach us what the social birds say, when they sit in the autumn council, talking together in the trees. The want of sympathy makes his record a dull dictionary. His result is a dead bird. The bird is not in its ounces and inches, but in its relations to Nature; and the skin or skeleton you show me, is no more a heron, than a heap of ashes or a bottle of gases into which his body has been reduced, is Dante or Washington. The naturalist is led from the road by the whole distance of his fancied advance. The boy had juster views when he gazed at the shells on the beach, or the flowers in the meadow, unable to call them by their names, than the man in the pride of his nomenclature. Astrology interested us, for it tied man to the system. Instead of an isolated beggar, the farthest star felt him, and he felt the star. However rash and however falsified by pretenders and traders in it, the hint was true and divine, the soul's avowal of its large relations, and, that climate, century, remote natures, as well as near, are part of its biography. Chemistry takes to pieces, but it does not construct. Alchemy which sought to transmute one element into another, to prolong life, to arm with power,--that was in the right direction. All our science lacks a human side. The tenant is more than the house. Bugs and stamens and spores, on which we lavish so many years, are not finalities, and man, when his powers unfold in order, will take Nature along with him, and emit light into all her recesses. The human heart concerns us more than the poring into microscopes, and is larger than can be measured by the pompous figures of the astronomer.
Dunno why you do not see Lem's proposal... as that "human side".
Not wrapped in recognizable/pleasant covers?
Funny thought.
I cought while in DiBi's rat hole. ;-P
Look at Star Trek -- whose the biggest monsters, the nastiest rivals there?
Borgs, isn't it?
They covered in wires. Connected with "the Hive". Their feelings and hands extended. They are "not human anymore".
But.
Look at us today.
We carrying electronic devices with us. All of the time.
We connected to all kinds of "hives" with their help.
And we even extend our feelings and abilities with it.
More and more. ;-P
When speaking in words with their definitions, we omit the "powers". We speak only of the "dead assembled bird".
Each assembly required a process which caused it. We usually speak only of the final product in our definitions. The "satellite", and not the process which built it. The "formal" cause... and not the steps or products between states of assembly.
Theseus' ship, and not the replaced planks.
Aristotle had it better...
Aristotle generally prioritized the formal cause as the determinant of identity. The Ship of Theseus would maintain the same formal cause throughout the replacement of its planks, whether the planks were replaced while at sea or on land. Thus, for Aristotle, the original ship is always the Ship of Theseus.
Cy-Borg. What changes humanity is the "tech" and "media".
We should approach the investigation of every kind of animal without being ashamed, since in each one of them there is something natural and something beautiful. The absence of chance and the serving of ends are found in the works of nature especially. And the end, for the sake of which a thing has been constructed or has come to be, belongs to what is beautiful.
— Aristotle, "On the Parts of Animals" (645a 21–26, Book I, Part 5.[29])
...you've set me to "rambling mode"... as usual. ;)
So??? Where is motte??? And where is bailey???
In their "relation"?
The 2 "true" tenets of Aristotelion 1st principle?
:P
\\Cy-Borg. What changes humanity is the "tech" and "media".
Naaah.
Stories told around fireplace.
For children to listen. Became believing em. Then, making em true. ;-)
\\...you've set me to "rambling mode"... as usual. ;)
If it gaves you pleasure?
My pleasure. :-)
\\When speaking in words with their definitions, we omit the "powers". We speak only of the "dead assembled bird".
Hah???
How then dead word from dead leafs... was able to make me feel... so alive???
\\Each assembly required a process which caused it.
It seems...
Yeah.
Like a KEY to a Unknown Lock.
\\ The "satellite", and not the process which built it.
Ough. That...
That would need that idiom -- to get banana one need to take gorilla... and whole jungles with it. ;-)
Means... we are like that motes... in amber. Frizzed into, inside time and place circumstances.
\\Aristotle generally prioritized the formal cause as the determinant of identity. The Ship of Theseus would maintain the same formal cause throughout the replacement of its planks, whether the planks were replaced while at sea or on land. Thus, for Aristotle, the original ship is always the Ship of Theseus.
Ancient Wizdoms... tend to grow inprecise, or even outdated... with time.
What is Microsoft Windows??? ;-)
Is it 3.11 for Work Groups? ;-P Or maybe "tiger in your computer" 95
Everlasting XP?
7, 9, 10, 87878%$$#$T%$????? :-)))))
Or... even BETTER -- what is Linux? Is it UNIX, Unix... or better? ;-P
\\So??? Where is motte??? And where is bailey???
\\In their "relation"?
Yeah. There is TWO. And they are destinguishable.
But... which is which?
What is Left? And what is Right? (if you don't know from what side you looking ;-P)
Books were always a man's "cybernetic" tech extensions. He committed his "memories" to something "outside himself" that like "genes" could be passed down to subsequent generations. Their weakness was that of the written word, that unlike the spoken word, cannot answer for itself, explain "what has changed" or be queried...
Technics? Perhaps one "form".
The motte is the dot in the Yang (or Yin).
Clothes... the "technics" of personal temperature control and comfort, of concealing my fat body, or lack of muscles. Or as Plato would call it, "attiring"
Attiring:Gymnastic::cookery:medicine.
...a "formal" cause of "health" implied.
...and Windows is a "form" specific to a non-Apple product (MicroSoft brand).
Apple "Lisa", GEM Desktop, MS Windows. Brands of same form.
Desktop with Icons, stolen from Xerox?
GEM was cool. I bought it to run an ASW game ("Under the Ice") back in the 80's. GEM draw was as good as Lisa Draw.
Those were the "good ole days" when I was working at Martin Marietta and reading books like "US Submarine Operations in WWII", Jane's Fighting Ships, and the Clancy classics like "Hunt for Red October".
I also read the companion "US Destroyer Operations in WWII" while working on a proposal for a NATO Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (SSTD) proposal.
I never read Air War stories though. I guess that the proposal to build a NATO Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) system didn't tickle the funny bone as much... :(
We lost both, anyways.
;-P
Hah... so my brain is not that useless, still. Somebody else found it too. :-)))
Gregory says:
October 14, 2019 at 11:05 am
In the following, you switched motte and baily.
One that comes to mind is the assertion that we have a free market in credit. The broad assertion in the motte is saying that the Fed is not really controlling interest rates. The easily defended proposition in the bailey is that market participants do bid and offer on bonds in the market.
The psychology of Selling crap does not always retreat to the most relevant or even secure motte. Is it in fact the board’s job to supply the diversity of opinion needed to develop processes, products, and human capital structures? More compelling is that boards should represent what diversity arises among shareholders so that it fulfills its oversight duties. I read board membership lists as indication of who the company feels it is beholden unto, not as an indication of how it runs its business.
George Soros, "The Alchemy of Finance"
No motte or bailey. ;P
:)
Meh. In flight simulator... you can do it yourself. ;-)
...or learn to "believe" you can.
Maybe motte and bailey was too simple an illustrative example. Maybe the mobius strip or crosscap or klein bottle is better. You should watch the Zizek video. It's describes the 4D alchemy of language and subjectivity better. It's hard to capture the reality of space-time in terms soley of 3D space. It ignores the time dimension, just as talking about time ignores the space dimension.
Like your 5-step Lem example
1 can understand 2, but not 3... we're trapped by the Klein bottle "Platonic Cave" of subjectivity.
There are quanta of time and quanta of space and never the two shall meet.
Time as a "gravitational wave" oscillation quanta???
Like Aristotle's formal cause and material cause "looping" in a Klein bottle.
...as dimensional (3D-4D) aspects
The "word" of language forming the Lacanian point de capiton.
"Symptoms" of a quantum reality.
like brain waves integrating different sensory data (sight, sound, smell, taste, feeling)...
The point de capiton language materializing out of the brain wave function's collapse.
\\Those were the "good ole days" when I was working at Martin Marietta and reading books like "US Submarine Operations in WWII", Jane's Fighting Ships, and the Clancy classics like "Hunt for Red October".
Well... I dunno, is there someone who research possibilities with modern techs???
Like fleet of some toy-submarines... that can attach itself... to a fleet of oil tankers, and bring USA on you knees, for example.
And you know what could be ONLY hope to prevent it, isn't it? ;-)
\\Maybe motte and bailey was too simple an illustrative example. Maybe the mobius strip or crosscap or klein bottle is better. You should watch the Zizek video. It's describes the 4D alchemy of language and subjectivity better.
Yep.
4D entities -- that is immediately needed part of that Systems Engineering I know...
Well... computer programs are such entities too.
\\ It ignores the time dimension, just as talking about time ignores the space dimension.
Well... I have my theory -- that our thinking possible exactly because of that -- our audial cortex working with straightforward structure of 1-dimentional sound/language/text...
which allows as to find some clue in that unintelligible mess of 3D, or even 4D and 5G of all other sensoric information waterfalls...
\\Like your 5-step Lem example
???
That??? Excerpt from DiBi's blog thread?
That was not Lem.
Too primitive idea, to be his. ;-P
Well... I dunno, is there someone who research possibilities with modern techs???
Like RAND or SRI? War games all the time?
My bad. I thought you were paraphrasing LEM wisdoms.
\\My bad. I thought you were paraphrasing LEM wisdoms.
He using wide brush... but his aim is very pointed.
\\Well... I dunno, is there someone who research possibilities with modern techs???
Well, DiBi bragging that he is member of something called NIAK.
But... with him being part of it -- it is obvious why things like 9/11 happaned. (while airplane ramming into skyscraper was shown in a movie, if I recall it right?)
\\Like RAND or SRI? War games all the time?
Movies again.
Like that with
Escape Plan is a 2013 American prison action thriller film starring Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and co-starring Jim Caviezel, 50 Cent, Vinnie Jones, Vincent D'Onofrio and Amy Ryan.[5] It was directed by Swedish filmmaker Mikael Håfström, and written by Miles Chapman and Jason Keller (under the anagram pen-name 'Arnell Jesko').[6] The first film to pair up Stallone and Schwarzenegger as co-leads,[7] it follows Stallone's character Ray Breslin, a lawyer turned prison security tester who is incarcerated in the world's most secret and secure prison, and recruits fellow inmate Emil Rottmayer, portrayed by Schwarzenegger, to stage a breakout. The film is the first installment of the Escape Plan film series.
But idea... I recall such a scifi novella from your 70th, maybe...
NIAC...
Yeah, kinda like my former friend Andres Gluski who was on the EXIM Advisory Committee...
Just a bunch of a-holes lending their "expertise" to rubber stamp bureaucratic agency decisions and make them "credible".
Like the WEF and all those stupid UN NGOs.
Adverts for spending tax $$$. As PT Barnum said, “Advertising is to a genuine article what manure is to land, – it largely increases the product.”
The "consultant industry". Companies like The Aerospace Corporation make a lot of money "advising" government agencies.
The don't call us "beltway bandits" for NO reason. ASRC was my last employer. Doing my part for the Inuit people.
Yeah... Super-Organism.
One need to have some insider -- to understand what put of it to talk with...
to not start to talk with butt hole... with known results. :-))))
Ooops. Not Inuit. Inupiat. Got my tribes crossed. Too much DEI I suspect... :(
Wee, it's DiBi for NIAC... ;)
Personally, I'd look for someone at NSF. They write the long-range science plans that NASA follows. The advisory committees are "nearer" term.
It's the biggest Bank for scientific research.
I want to find someone who'd understand my babbling... first.
To not repeat destiny of Nikola... :-(
Try an astronaut. "Influencer". Everyone loves talking to them.
Do they have brains? ;-P
I only really worked with one directly. And yes, he was very smart. But I guess you could say that his particular "expertise" was in "risk management."
He was the deputy project manager on LCRD (Laser Comm).
I need not just smart... but wise.
One who'd grok Multi-Path... instead just One-Path...
Hah...
Captcha images looks like became somewhat more interesting
Maybe it learning, still.
One need to be not just smart... but wise. Even if for a little.
One who'd grok Multi-Path... instead just One-Path...
I think...
Isn't that what Risk Management is? Multiple paths.
...in case current one goes south?
Simultaneously? ;-)
Guidance for the Preparation and Submission of Unsolicited Proposals
Revised May 2016 <<---- not very promicing. Might be remnant of some Good Old Days...
But... let's explore. Wouldn't hart?
More about that Multi-Path... on example of sending probe(s) to another star(s). ;-)
As we agreed only sensible way -- use technological seed able to find and utilize local resources. But, let's postpone HOW to achieve that, for now. And turn to most basic facet of it -- mass of that seed. If it'll be a grain of sand size -- we could start sending it right away even with our current techs and abilities(with some rail gun? ;-)). For the very least inside our own Solar system.
If it'll be ONE TON... that would be nearly impossible -- to send it to other stars. While still possible locally.
If it'll be THOUSAND TONS... we have NO means to do that. So far as we can, how much? 100 tons to rise up to the orbit? In one piece.
See?
And there is much much more of such parameters -- energy sources, raw resources, ability to recycle... and etc, and etc, and etc...
Basicly, what I trying to say here can be presented as State Space.
What is it?
For example let's ask a question -- how much human can carry, and with which speed? It can be showed graphically.
Weight
|\
|..\
|....\
|......\
|.........\
----------------------- Speed
Easy to see -- while max speed (like 10m/s of sprinter) can be achieved when weight is less. And more weight will mean being slower.
And... we can add more info to that graph -- human on bicycle, and it'll give more speed, but less weight. Or we can give human a carriage, and it will increase max weight... though reduce speed.
Or... we can give something with OWN motor...
Which mean... there is "hidden dimensions", like Time and Ingenuity -- with can change what we can achieve...
So.
We can define our GOAL as such many-multi-dimentional point... and even if that point is not in a space of our CURRENT technological reach. Still we can see/find a way how we can go there. ;-)
How it is to you?
My this "motte and bailey"? ;-)
I'll come back to this... it needs some concentration.
/let's explore. Wouldn't hart?
Unsolicited proposals don't have money sitting around waiting to be applied to them. The money's being allocated to programs coming down the NSF pipeline and incorporated into the individual agency strategic plans as part of the normal/ regular budgeting process.
So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best.
/More about that Multi-Path... on example of sending probe(s) to another star(s). ;-)
As we agreed only sensible way -- use technological seed able to find and utilize local resources. But, let's postpone HOW to achieve that, for now. And turn to most basic facet of it -- mass of that seed. If it'll be a grain of sand size -- we could start sending it right away even with our current techs and abilities(with some rail gun? ;-)). For the very least inside our own Solar system.
If it'll be ONE TON... that would be nearly impossible -- to send it to other stars. While still possible locally.
If it'll be THOUSAND TONS... we have NO means to do that. So far as we can, how much? 100 tons to rise up to the orbit? In one piece.
See?
And there is much much more of such parameters -- energy sources, raw resources, ability to recycle... and etc, and etc, and etc...
Basicly, what I trying to say here can be presented as State Space.
What is it?
For example let's ask a question -- how much human can carry, and with which speed? It can be showed graphically.
Weight
|\
|..\
|....\
|......\
|.........\
----------------------- Speed
Easy to see -- while max speed (like 10m/s of sprinter) can be achieved when weight is less. And more weight will mean being slower. and shows
And... we can add more info to that graph -- human on bicycle, and it'll give more speed, but less weight. Or we can give human a carriage, and it will increase max weight... though reduce speed.
Or... we can give something with OWN motor...
Which mean... there is "hidden dimensions", like Time and Ingenuity -- with can change what we can achieve...
So.
We can define our GOAL as such many-multi-dimentional point... and even if that point is not in a space of our CURRENT technological reach. Still we can see/find a way how we can go there. ;-)
Sounds, to a dummy like me, like a very complex neural net problem with state-space parameters for time, money, etc. for optimizing a solution. You proposing to build it? Build a 3-4-5+ node model with a small R&D grant and do a demo. Then scale it up. Pitch it to a small AI start-up, or to government directly. If it's clever, who knows? Make a YouTube that omits the proprietary details, and the investors might beat a path to your door. As Barnum said,
"The bigger the humbug, the better people will like it" and "without publicity a terrible thing happens: nothing."
...and no, it's not a motte and bailey problem. I'm not sure what kind of problem it is. It's likely one more complicated than I'd ever care to attempt to solve (infinite parameters). But then again, there's little element of "subjectivity" (ie - Klein bottle problem) in it (except the "limiting of parameters") unless you care to make it so.
Let's explore it a little bit further.
Let's assume that we have just a human sprinter, for now. And ask -- Can we deliver 10 kg at top speed?
It looks impossible, isn't it? Sprinter over-weighted that much -- will not be able to show his top speed, for sure. But, what if we'd take TEN sprinters? And give each 1/10 of 10 kg. Just one kilo... might not be that big problem, isn't it?
Well. Even if that kilos need to be in one peace -- it still possible to arrange it for 10 or more people to do something with it.
What's happening here? Something "impossible" at first glance becomes possible?
Let's do something more tricky here. Like, making something move with doubled speed -- isn't that purely impossible? While only possible are ONE speed -- max speed of a sprinter.
But.
What speed is??? That is change in position... for a fixed range of time.
So. Imagine. We ordering TWO sprinters -- first to stand on the START line. And second -- 100 meters ahead. So, when they'll run. Second will appear on that place we would like to achieve as doubled speed. ;-)
So. All what remains -- to devise some system (made of some ropes and wheels, for example), which would redistribute needed speedup.
See? That is Technology -- Alchemy, that TRANSMUTATES "inconceivable" into "possible" and into "practical" even.
Like.
Do you know this foto?
That is very first transistor -- from which all modern Electronics have started.
And it would need DAMN WILD imagination -- to predict that "in Future" one would be carrying in one's pocket BILLIONS of transistors, isn't it?
And slightly before that -- it was "inconceivable" even. Because idea of billions electronic tubes in a pocket... purely and definitely crazy. ;-P
But... there was ones ABLE to devise it, still. Like Turing. Because he thought about it in terms of abstract "computations". Which then could be arranged in a way. That could create Thinking Machine even.
\\So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best.
Ohh... I see many-many more problems then that. Like that, that as foreigner, I have much more problems with presenting my "unsolicited proposals". So what, better not try? ;-P
\\Sounds, to a dummy like me, like a very complex neural net problem with state-space parameters for time, money, etc. for optimizing a solution.
Well... we -- humans. Have billions of neural nets in our brain. And there over 8 billion of US.
So, what's the problem? ;-)
\\You proposing to build it?
That's just a roadmap... to what I was babbling before -- bio-like robots, space "seeds" and etc.
To show what and how IS possible. ;-)
\\...and no, it's not a motte and bailey problem.
Why not?
I trying to PROTECT big and bright idea -- sending probes to other stars. Which looks too wild and even crazy.
With much smaller... baby steps, practically. To show that it all POSSIBLE in the first place.
\\ I'm not sure what kind of problem it is. It's likely one more complicated than I'd ever care to attempt to solve (infinite parameters).
Do you know? Happen to interact? With computational mathematics? ;-)
It used practically from inception of Computers -- to solve such multi-dimentional equations -- which is either very hard, or purely impossible to solve analytically.
Again.
Alchemy of Technologies. ;-)
So... what I talking about -- it's Three Tier problematics.
On the highest floor... practically on the roof of skyscraper. Or on the top of Everest. Is that idea with "sending probes to other start". "Inconceivable". One which nobody, apart from some crazy or airheaded eggheads would only try to talk about. (Thank you, thank you, thank you)
Sure, it is not possible. To go there. In one big jump. Even if it Quantum Leap.
It's not possible to leap-frog all that problems on the road. ;-P
So. There is Second Tier.
And it shows -- that All The Same problems as in sending "technological seed" to other star -- is possible, and even practical, to use and test in our Solar system first.
Really. Why not send some "technological seed"... to Pluto or Neptune. So it would sprout there... and will grow into... some Space Telescope Array, for example?
Isn't that DAMN interesting. And in NASA's best interest idea? ;-)
But.
Still.
It is also -- too wild. And even crazy. WHO could I start talking with, about such ideas. And WHO would be listening... from such nobody as I am. :-(((
SO.
There is Golden and Precious First Tier. ;-)
BEFORE all that Second and Third goodies could be practical. Or even possible.
ALL THE SAME tech could be developed and trained HERE, on the Earth.
Like... in our oceans. That are pretty much are same wast and closed to our inspection... as Big Space is.
Wouldn't it be good to have that same "bio-like fish-robots"? Ability to make something like "technological seeds"... in the deeps of the ocean waters?
And etc, and etc, and etc...
Well... while holding that Second and Third Tier ideas in mind. And working in their direction too.
Well...
For now. Only practical is... Zero Tier ONLY. :-((((((
That... what I (trying to) do here.
Big Journey... need to start from a first (baby) step. Inevitably.
\\So unless there's money "left over" or something "get's cancelled"... it's a long shot at best.
/Ohh... I see many-many more problems then that. Like that, that as foreigner, I have much more problems with presenting my "unsolicited proposals". So what, better not try? ;-P
They don't care where you're at unless there are International Trafficing in Arms Regulations (ITAR) problems with the country you're in (like China or North Korea). And NASA (or another agency) might get your country to fund it, and provide it "free" to us... as a State-to-State agreement... much as we "contributed" XRISM mirrors and cryo/detectors to JAXA. They cost JAXA 0, we just get access to the data faster (than non-contributing scientists).
Ooops. deleted first answer.
Your problem (sprinters) only works (double speed) from the perspective of the initial conditions of both sprinters and the subjective viewpoint of the 2nd sprinter. It's a Non-sequitur from the subjective viewpoint of the first sprinter or the overall system (1/2 speed).
What am I missing?
I do like your 3-4 multi-layered approach. But the question is, can you make a level 1 "seed" capable of surviving all the "environments" at all the layers? I've worked Venus probes.... we're lucky if we can get them to survive a few hours on the surface. 1,000 pounds pressure at 1,000 degrees F. And heat shield for Parker Solar probe... to touch the sun. The material science... and so your ocean problem environment... easy at surface... hard at bottom of Marianas trench.
I'm sure that's where all your proprietary ideas are for an "ovo". But the material science? Power? Sounds impossible to me, still. :(
Even vacuum of space has many thermal considerations. Some you need to operate in, others, simply "survive".
Does the ovo have to maintain a certain attitude for power (pointing solar arrays)? Can it 'tumble"? How hot/cold can the materials get? etc., etc., etc.
Ever play with The Kerbal Space Program computer game?
:P
\\I do like your 3-4 multi-layered approach. But the question is, can you make a level 1 "seed" capable of surviving all the "environments" at all the layers?
Of course -- no.
More then that -- nobody can.
Even if Musk will have all money of China, and revive and clone all brainiacs.
They would need to do that step by step approach anyway.
Cause... nobody have that info -- what that "capable of surviving all the "environments"" even mean. ;-P
You know that story about -- how Edison was making his light bulb? ;-)
He... in his manner -- just organized trying all kind of things and material.
Though... if he'd ask some profi physic/chemist... they could narrow his choice right away...
That wolfram is the most high-temperature element.
But... how that'd help Edison? There was no source of wolfram already...
See.
Multi-Dimensionality.
\\Your problem (sprinters) only works (double speed) from the perspective of the initial conditions of both sprinters and the subjective viewpoint of the 2nd sprinter. It's a Non-sequitur from the subjective viewpoint of the first sprinter or the overall system (1/2 speed).
Of course.
But that is also what creates an opportunity. Gives some space. To do it that way, or another way.
You know, like lever -- simplest gadget of Technology.
You lose in speed... but gain in strength. And other such "magic".
Or Alchemy.
A blank sheet of paper has infinite design space, too. :(
Infinite? Maybe.
But is it multi-dimentional? ;-)
Remember? "Magic weapon to defeat jedi"
Do you know that dude -- Kantor? ;-)
No, I'm not getting it. Magic weapon? fear? Kantor? which?
Well... in a sense Kantor and Infinity are synonyms.
Sorry. :-(
Georg Cantor - Wikipedia
wikipedia.org
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Georg_Cantor
Cantor's method of proof of this theorem implies the existence of an infinity of infinities. He defined the cardinal and ordinal numbers and their arithmetic.
Biography · Mathematical work · Philosophy, religion, literature...
12.5 Lines and Planes
whitman.edu
https://www.whitman.edu › section12.05.html
Lines and planes are perhaps the simplest of curves and surfaces in three dimensional space. They also will prove important as we seek to understand more ...
To define a line -- TWO points enough.
To define a plane -- THREE points needed.
Jedi's light sabre -- it's a line.
Means -- it cannot protect from THREE-pointed laserguns. ;-)
How about a blackbody shield? ;P
Absorbs the 3 beams and returns all the fire. :)
Too bad.
That sounds like weapon of Siths. ;-P
Post a Comment