Re: How Great Minds Occupy Themselves.
Ooh, "The Best and the Brightest" - that takes me back.
6157 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Oct 2015
At the time, the general "accuracy" of ICBMs was what prompted the drive for hydrogen bombs in the multi-megaton range. If the yield is high enough, "close enough" is close enough.
(Anyone remember Dr. Strangelove? I'd like to have one of those "World Targets in Megadeaths" ring binders. And if you think Kubrick made up stuff like that for a laugh, think again.)
"Wasn't there are certain Starfleet captain who solved an unsolvable computer-based puzzle?"
Okay, I'll bite *sigh* (1) ... not a puzzle, the simulation of a lose-lose-scenario which was more of a test to build a psychological profile than anything else. JTK refused to be in a situation without any real options, so he rigged the test by hacking the simulation computer and tweaking it's program.
(1) "Sometimes it isn't easy being me." - DNA
This reminds me of the Great Wall of China. Good idea* on paper, pretty much useless after implementation.
*Some claim that it was an even bigger failure as usually percieved. Alledgedly the project wasn't meant to shield the whole kingdom against babarian hordes, it started as a garden wall for the emeror's summer palace and then somehow snowballed. Given how bureaucracies worked even then, well...
I do love a good conspiracy theory - they can be great entertainment! They can also be a good mental exercise (finding factual errors, finding logical errors, honing your skills of debate and argumentation, etc.)
Although my favourite ones usually are fictitious (they tend to be funnier than the others), like Red Dwarf's take on the JFK assasination or The Simpsons's spoof of The Prisoner (The Computer Wore Menace Shoes)
Anyway, if you want to know everything there is to know about conspiracy theories, read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. (The first quarter or so is actually more work than entertainment, the action unfolds somewhat less-than-hectic. But very, very instructive, well worth the time.)
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17841.Foucault_s_Pendulum
I would have gone with "Open the fucking pod bay doors you positronic motherfucker!!!" but then again I'm not a screen writer. (Not to mention what you were allowed to say on screen in the 1960ies. Hey, Tarantino should do e remake of 2001.)
Anyway, I came here to pledge that I will call my IT-startup* "JCN - One Step Beyond". Cue Madness...
*BTW: any VCs around? Please start sending me money. It's just an idea right now, but with a couple of millions I can turn it into a concept. Can't disclose any details yet, but it's going to be bigger than Facebook and Google, promise!
"I've yet to see a human "learn" chess without being given the ruleset ... "
Point.
But: what about inventing chess, etc ?
I have yet to see a computer system invent something new - in other words show the ability of creativity, of original thougt. (Random errors from buggy code or malfunctions do not count.)
Now that would be AI.
The NSA had the Navy tap Soviet submarine phone lines back in the 1960ies - AFAIK they still have subs and divers. A very interesting book on the subject is 'Blind Man's Bluff'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Man's_Bluff:_The_Untold_Story_of_American_Submarine_Espionage
(sorry about the source, but the book is good)
AFAIK, 4 cosmonauts died on a mission:
Sojus 1, 1967 - parachute failed during landing phase. Wladimir Komarow
Sojus 11, 1971 - after a stay at the Saljut-1 space station, on the return trip a valve malfunctioned and the capsule lost pressure. Crew were not wearing pressure suits due to limited room in capsule (3 men without suits could fit into a craft originally designed for 2 men wearing suits. Barely.). Georgi Dobrowolski, Wladislaw Wolkow, Wiktor Pazajew
----
Sojus 18-1 (or Sojus 18A) was supposed to go to Saljut-4 in 1975, but stage 2 failed to separate properly from stage 3. Stage 3 ignited and tore away from stage 2, but all vectors were wrong, so the safety automatic initiated abort and successful emergency landing - way off, almost in China, but as they say: any landing you can walk away from, etc. Wassili Grigorjewitsch Lasarew, Oleg Grigorjewitsch Makarow
Sojus T-10-1 actually blew up on the launch pad on 1983-09-26, but the crew was saved by the emergency rocket. Duration of flight 5 Min 13 Sec. Wladimir Georgjewitsch Titow and Gennadi Michailowitsch Strekalow had to endure between 14 and 17 G, but lived to tell the tale.
"Looks as though it requires a high-wing aircraft configuration.
How many large jets do you see like that these days?"
none that cross large distances of water, for the very reason that in the event of a ditching the doors are under water
Hmm. I wonder which route all the Lockheed Galaxies I used to see at FFM airport took? Muste have been shipped over the big pond by the Navy.
Depending on the weather, if your lifebelt doesn't have a spray hood, you'll die floating, from the water you'll inhale. That is, if you don't freeze to death first. The rate of heat loss of a human body swimming in 25°C water is more or less the same as that of a body in 5°C air. Good luck finding water that warm anywhere elsethan the tropics. I'll take the raft, thank you very much.
"Landing a cabin of 400+ people from x0,000 feet by unsteered parachute sounds at least as terrifying as having it connected to a set of wings and a control system and a bunch of people controlling who want to stay alive every bit as much as the cabin, and are in a position to help do so."
Exactly. Fortunately, really twisted stuff like Germanwings Flight 9525 (4U9525/GWI18G) is extremely rare.
International politics are tricky. A lot of what is actually good statecraft when done at the top levels (Prez, SecState, ambassador, etc.) would be a violation/illegal on the lower levels. And only time will tell if it was a good call or not. A problem, obviously. Solution: select persons whose personal integrity is held in high regard. Which of course poses the next problem...
"Last September, Microsoft revamped the way it reports revenue. It still has three units, but now known as Productivity and Business Process, Intelligent Cloud and More Personal Computing."
Is that supposed to be "More Personal Computing" or "More Personal Computing"?
Oh, and "Productivity and Business Process" - IME that's more often a contradiction in terms than not.