kahirsch
gb18030.ucm
ibm-1364_P110-2007.ucm
ibm-1390_P110-2003.ucm
ibm-1399_P110-2003.ucm
ibm-16684_P110-2003.ucm
ibm-933_P110-1995.ucm
ibm-949_P110-1999.ucm
ibm-949_P11A-1999.ucmAnd in 2022, he wrote "Covid-19 is mostly snake venom added to drinking water in selected locations. There may also be a virus, but the main vehicle of hospitalizations is boatloads of powder, mixed in during 'water treatment.' Remdesivir, the main treatment for Covid, is injected snake venom. mRNA vaccines hijack your body to make more snake venom."
I found that amusing circa 1975.
I'm not sure what you're claiming here. Civilian employees are less than 3% of federal spending, so it won't have a measurable effect on spending. Some employees, like IRS employees, bring in revenue.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cWgWx1RKjEUjavPn8
Whether the facility is built there or 50 km away, it's going to have to draw people from more than a few km away. The entire Taltal district only has about 11,000 people.
There seems to be this naïve view among some philosophers that what our verbal stream of consciousness reports is somehow the most important part of our "mind" or our "consciousness", some even saying that verbal thoughts are the only thing that are important enough to be called "thoughts"!
I say: look what’s telling you that! I mean that very seriously.
I've always assumed that the brain has to have many parallel things going on at the same time and we have some limited awareness of these things and some ability to coordinate and direct the different parts of the brain, but it seems to be rather limited. It can't be complete, just on a Turing/Goedel basis, but anything approaching completeness would mean slowing our thoughts down to the slowest parts.
I remember reading about the Libet experiment decades ago and how some people thought that it disproved "free will"— whatever that could possibly mean. The impulse to report a decision to move a finger came after the impulse to move the finger. So? They were apparently assuming that the mind was some synchronized, sequential process and that the verbal report of what "the mind" was intending to do was supposed to come at the same time or before the impulse to move the finger. What???
Even a view of a single stream of "attention" or "executive process" seems dubious. Yes, we have all had the experience where something that's mostly automatic/unconscious suddenly requires our attention. For example, you're driving a car and suddenly a novel situation comes up and you need to turn off the radio or tell the passenger to shut up so you devote all your attention to driving. But just normal driving requires an enormous amount of processing of different concepts and coordinating different parts of the brain.
There was an experiment (Maier's two-string puzzle, I just found by google), where a scientist tested people's ability to solve a problem figuring out how to tie two strings together that were hanging from the ceiling, too far apart for anyone to grab both at the same time. Some of the participants were given a non-verbal "hint" of how to solve the problem. But, when asked later how they solved it, most of those given the hint didn't mention it! Were they "consciously aware" of the hint at all? That was an actual experiment relevant to the idea of a unity of consciousness.
Anyway, mine is a very limited, amateur, mostly 20th century perspective on the ideas. I'd be interested in what others have to share, especially actual experiments and not so much philosophers examining their verbal thoughts.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/13/why-ira-hydrogen-tax-credit-...
The President saw the officer staring at the fixtures and asked, "Son, do you have a shower like that?"
The officer replied, "No, sir!"
President Johnson said, "Then, boy, you got a dirty ass!"
I'm a little stunned by this suggestion. I've worked in quite a few different context for application systems, e.g. retail, manufacturing of fiber optic cable, manufacturing of telecommunications equipment, laboratory information management, etc.
I wouldn't even know what you mean by "app" in this context. There may a dozen or more classes of users who collectively have hundreds, even thousands, of different types of interaction with the system.
Sometimes there were natural divisions where you could separate things into a separate database. For example, the keep/dispose system for laboratory specimens, which tracked which specimens needed to be kept for possible further testing, where, and for how long. But most problem domains were not like that.
And sometimes we had to interact with other systems because they were for a separate division (because of mergers and acquisitions). But those kinds of separations made for more limited functionality and more difficulty in managing change, not less.
The article does mention the earlier story and links to it in the paragraph:
> The existence of the meeting has been public since shortly after it happened in December 2018. The New York Times reported shortly after the meeting took place that Ms. Warren had sought it “as a courtesy,” and that neither party had tried to gain the other’s support or discourage the other from running. But the two senators were the only people in the room, and all reports of what was said had been secondhand.
I guess that's a limitation of dimensional analysis, since they both have the same units and dimensions.
It's available for free several places online, e.g. https://tubitv.com/movies/312561/my-trip-to-al-qaeda
The second part of the book, which was about the FBI's pursuit of Al Qaeda, was turned into a dramatized series on Hulu. It's very much from the FBI's point of view. One of the main "characters" in the series is Ali Soufan, played by an actor. The real Ali Soufan was one of the producers.
That's not what this case is about. The California Department of Education is not claiming that Thomas Dee misused confidential data. The CDE said that their contract with Dee means that he cannot testify against them or participate in an unrelated case against them.
I read an interesting bit in a DBMS paper once about space-compression and the oddities of space-padding collation order.
As this article says, 'A\x03' is supposed to come before 'A' in collation order, because the 'A' is (conceptually, at least) padded with spaces before being compared.
So in the paper I was reading, they had to have different representations to compress runs of spaces, one for when the spaces are followed by a character > space (or end-of-string), and another for when the spaces are followed by a character < space. In the final representation, you can just use memcmp to compare the strings.
I think that same paper talked about the pains that IBM had when they first ported DB2 (or maybe another earlier DBMS) to a little-endian architecture. There were many places in their collation and indexing code where they compared 4-character segments using integer comparison. That works great on IBM's big-endian architecture, but not on, e.g. x86.
> ... media reports about me have generally been loaded with bull manure. In particular, reports about the Murray study have been wildly, wildly exaggerated. People write to tell me how sorry for me they feel because I was "tortured" again and again by the Murray group as part of an "MK Ultra experiment allegedly carried out by the CIA. Actually, there was only one unpleasant experience in the Murray study; it lasted about half an hour and could not reasonably have been described as "traumatic." Mostly the study consisted of interviews and filling out pencil-and-paper personality tests. The CIA was not involved.
> About 15 or 20 years ago a TV journalist named Chris Vlasto (if I remember the name correctly) looked up some of the other participants in the study and found that nothing had happened that was worth reporting in the media. My brief correspondence with Vlasto should be available in the University of Michigan's Special Collections library at Ann Arbor.
You can actually hear one minute of the recording of that half hour session with Ted Kaczynski on a series "A History of Persuasion" produced by WNYC, that was on their podcasts On the Media and The Stakes. It starts about 9:50 into the episode 2[2].
> AMANDA: But I wanted to find out what actually happened that day in that room. And I managed to track down a recording of this actual interview with Kaczysnki.
> MALE VOICE: This is Monday evening, March 14th, 1960. Dyad #12 is about to begin between Mr Sh- and Mr Kaczynski. K-A-C….
> AMANDA: ... Only a handful of people have ever heard this before. This is the law student:
> INTERROGATOR: I ought to warn you before I start this, I do not have a very favorable impression of you as a result of reading your philosophy but let me just tick off a few preliminaries and then we will get to what I really didn’t like. First...
> AMANDA: And this... is Kaczynski
> TED KACZYNSKI: Yeah well all through this thing, uh, you’ve been saying well this and that, but you haven’t given me any arguments or reasons, you say that…
> INTERROGATOR: Well, Mr Kaczynski I have just formed an opinion of you and it’s not particularly favorable...
> AMANDA: You can hear, Kaczynski sounds annoyed.
> KACZYNSKI: I think the reason, one of the reasons you attack my philosophy so vigorously is because you don’t want to believe it.
> INTERROGATOR: (laughs)
> KACZYNSKI: And, in your, you uh… I think the way you laugh is an indication of that too.
> INTERROGATOR: Do you really?
> KACZYNSKI 1960: Yeah I do. But of course I’m no psychologist.
> INTERROGATOR: I’m trying to keep this -- hold on, I’m no psychologist Mr Kaczynski …
> AMANDA: To me, it sounds like a very uncomfortable college debate class.
> KAI: Right, I mean it’s hard to imagine that would break somebody.
> AMANDA: Right. I also managed to find someone who was there. Another undergrad who took part in the experiment at Harvard. Philip Bradley says yes, this was a pretty uncomfortable. But the idea it was damaging...?
> PHILIP BRADLEY: Bullshit. Or I should say, that's ridiculous.
> AMANDA: And you're sure because... you were, you were there, it sounds like....
> BRADLEY: Yeah. I mean how, how could you think that something like that would be permanently psychologically damaging to someone that would push somebody into becoming a psychopath. I mean I just... that idea is just to me so far fetched and I don't know how it's become part of popular lore.
> AMANDA: It’s clear that this theory just isn’t true. This is not what broke Ted Kaczysnki. It’s not the reason he tried to kill James McConnell. And yet it’s totally taken off. It’s been in all of these books, there’s these articles, it was in the TV show “Manhunt,” about the Unabomber.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/VP4Qpag.jpg
[2] https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/on-the-media-history-persu...
That used to be true.