| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On July 22 2016 09:09 JimmiC wrote: But not big ones, there are components of spaceships that weigh more then 225 pounds that have fallen and not made large craters. Superman doesn't typically ablate due to atmospheric friction, and could also be moving faster than 11 km/s. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On July 22 2016 14:06 Simberto wrote: Because he is usually falling because someone punched him. Why doesn't the puncher shoot up with a similar speed due to conservation of momentum? As most punches wont land exactly in the center of gravity of superman, how come superman usually falls straight down, rather than rapidly rotating due to conservation of angular momentum? This one bugs me off quite a bit in some movies: all the people with jetpacks on their back that shoot a jet straight down. The force is clearly wide of their center of gravity and should induce a rapid forward rotation. Why don't they? Answer of course is: because comic book. Why do people spend so much time trying to explain the physics of something that isn't designed or claiming to follow physics? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 22 2016 03:06 KwarK wrote: How is nobody firing pointless? I don't understand any part of where you're coming from. To me the entire purpose of MAD is to make war so futile that it doesn't happen. Success is no war. MAD has failed if a war happens. Like how are you not getting this? No war is like the entire thing, the entire point. MAD is a state of peace enforced by the threat of war. If the state of peace no longer exists then the MAD no longer exists. The only scenario in which MAD does not fail is called peace. MAD succeeded since the Soviet's got their hands on nukes and it outlasted the Soviet Union. It succeeded by making war so terrible that no war happened until eventually one of the two combatants tired of the struggle. it's pointless to the conversation because the premise stated that someone already fired first ... ?. if i were to summarize your initial point: MAD failed so now the only thing left to do, is to die. my point: MAD does not fail when one side shoots first but when the other side doesn't shoot back(it's like you throw a ball at a wall and it comes back at you. if the wall is a dude pushing the button, three dudes turning keys or some random sensors, it does not matter. the ball always comes back to you because ... physics). also, (at least)for the sake of the argument and to the stated premise, you refuse to distance yourself from the real life MAD and its consequences; you argue from an irl MAD failure pov. then try to apply its logic to your theoretical premise. a real life MAD fail does not assure complete and utter destruction of at least "one side". i.r.l., some people will survive it so one can probably attach morals and emotions to such decisions but arguing, describing and drawing conclusions based on i.r.l. MAD skews your logic here. in your argument, if MAD fails and you stated that it does, your idea of a MAD success does not exist. you made sure success was off the table when constructing your point. why keep bringing up states or conditions that are pre-premise?. also based on yours-truly, no actual war happens; one side keeps sipping cocktails while the other gets evaporated. the physical or moral struggle, those tough decisions(you seem to be so fond of) that would accompany a war, do not exist so stop patting yourself on the back thinking that you and your decision making capabilities saved the other half+ Show Spoiler + (we would be better of arguing whether or not god exists) this shit is as abstract as it gets but you demand emotions and care-bear attitudes based in your i.r.l. associations. meh, childish Edit - the only argument or question remaining here is: are you better than me for thinking that saving proven pro-genocide humans are better for humanity's future than a tabula rasa, a clean slate(which is what i think). | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
- Yes, in the MAD approach the retaliation should be a no-brainer, or preferably completely automated. - But in the set premise, this is not the case. This either a very poorly set up MAD, or a world that didn't prepare for this with the MAD strategy. Whatever the reason for how we ended up in this situation, we now have a real human being that get to make the choice. - Yes, in practice you wont wipe the entire population with a strike, and a retaliation won't wipe the entire remaining population. - But in the set premise, this is not the case. This is some distant future or parallel universe with enough firepower to actually wipe everyone. So you can argue that the premise is of only philosophical interest, and I am definitely on that side. But the premise isn't invalidated only because it corresponds to a failed MAD response. Let the philosophers play their games with their imaginary situations. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
So you can argue that the premise is of only philosophical interest, and I am definitely on that side yes, but this But the premise isn't invalidated only because it corresponds to a failed MAD response is a noob trap because what Kwark is trying to do when using the later on his own argument, is to shift the "only philosophical interest" of the premise into some kind of blame game which speaks volumes about ones human worthiness/value to humanity(sometimes with immediate practical consequences: see farvacola condemnation of pmh). + Show Spoiler +very common leftie(unconscious by now) argumentation route; one slowly shifts/erodes an argument until it fits one of his predefined notions, category, narrative and then starts calling people out as per their definition: racist, xenophobe, women hater, Hitler ... etc, point at which they've won the argument | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11839 Posts
On July 22 2016 19:17 xM(Z wrote: this yes, but this is a noob trap because what Kwark is trying to do when using the later on his own argument, is to shift the "only philosophical interest" of the premise into some kind of blame game which speaks volumes about ones human worthiness/value to humanity(sometimes with immediate practical consequences: see farvacola condemnation of pmh). + Show Spoiler + very common leftie(unconscious by now) argumentation route; one slowly shifts/erodes an argument until it fits one of his predefined notions, category, narrative and then starts calling people out as per their definition: racist, xenophobe, women hater, Hitler ... etc, point at which they've won the argument No, the problem is that there was a question with a premise. You ignored that premise and talked about something else with a superficial similarity to the original question for some reason. Then you got annoyed when people explained the original premise to you because it was not what you talked about before. The original talking point was "You are in a MAD scenario, the other guy has launched. What should the response be". You then kept talking about "Well in MAD, the point is that you make sure the other guy knows that you will launch, so you have to launch now", which is an argument that obviously violates causality. And now you have come to the conclusion that the problems in this discussion were caused by "lefties" not being able to have a reasonable discussion and falling back to an "unconscious by now" argumentation route, and NOT by you simply not understanding the original question, or ignoring it willfully. The way logic works is that you start with premises, which both sides need to accept, and then use arguments based off of those. If you don't like the premises, don't have the discussion. But attacking the premises especially in hypothetical situations serves no purpose but to make the discussion completely inane, because at that point no one talks about the same things anymore, which makes everything completely pointless. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On July 22 2016 19:26 Simberto wrote: No, the problem is that there was a question with a premise. You ignored that premise and talked about something else with a superficial similarity to the original question for some reason. Then you got annoyed when people explained the original premise to you because it was not what you talked about before. The original talking point was "You are in a MAD scenario, the other guy has launched. What should the response be". You then kept talking about "Well in MAD, the point is that you make sure the other guy knows that you will launch, so you have to launch now", which is an argument that obviously violates causality. And now you have come to the conclusion that the problems in this discussion were caused by "lefties" not being able to have a reasonable discussion and falling back to an "unconscious by now" argumentation route, and NOT by you simply not understanding the original question, or ignoring it willfully. The way logic works is that you start with premises, which both sides need to accept, and then use arguments based off of those. If you don't like the premises, don't have the discussion. But attacking the premises especially in hypothetical situations serves no purpose but to make the discussion completely inane, because at that point no one talks about the same things anymore, which makes everything completely pointless. the premise On July 20 2016 00:29 KwarK wrote: i, time and time again ascribed to "render humanity extinct" side but refused his blame assigning gymnastics and his lectures on game theory Make it clear that you would to who? Nobody is left. I wrote the original hypothetical but it's basically. 1) Two opposing blocs that include all of humanity between them 2) Each has a weapon capable of wiping out the other and each threatens that if the other attacks then they will use their own weapon in retaliation such that while any attack will be successful the attackers will not live long enough to enjoy it. 3) One bloc attacks anyway using their weapon. At this point the second bloc is utterly doomed. There will be no survivors. 4) The attacked bloc has the choice of whether to counterattack. It cannot change their fate, there is no chance of improving their situation, all they can choose to do is either render humanity extinct to serve as a lesson of the perils of a MAD policy or refuse to do so. On July 20 2016 01:00 KwarK wrote: then his guilt tripping assuming some would be scenarios Better that all humanity is destroyed out of spite than my enemy be rewarded with success for killing me. Game theory experiments into the value of spite are pretty interesting but you have to hope that when it comes to the extermination of the only intelligent life we know to exist in the universe people would choose against wiping them out to prove a point to the endless void. Nobody would learn any lesson from it because there would be nobody to learn a lesson from it. After a million years or so it'd be like humanity never existed. To me the whole idea of MAD is utterly insane, the win condition is your enemy being so convinced of your total irrationality that they dare not risk it. On July 20 2016 01:32 KwarK wrote: The winner will have grandkids who write books about how evil their grandfathers were and the philosophy and ideals of your nation will continue in their history books. The bloc that was united against your bloc will fall apart due to internal divisions eventually. All of the points that actually caused the conflict between the two blocs are small picture stuff, the survival of intelligent life is big picture stuff. And you're right that given enough shots at creating intelligent life randomly there probably wouldn't be an intelligent life that destroyed itself, unless we presume that complex and spiteful irrationality is a precondition to intelligence, but so far earth is home to the only intelligent life we have evidence that there has ever been. And I disagree, I think an ideological desire to act in intensely irrational ways due to obscure moral points is the reason the right lose. They'd launch a million dollar taxpayer funded investigation into whether or not someone misused $100 of taxpayer money and, upon finding no wrongdoing, state that it is important that there be transparency in whether people are using taxpayer money wisely. you read up on the definition of MAD Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender also read It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. admit then realize we're not longer in a MAD scenario as per 3) One bloc attacks anyway using their weapon which is incompatible with prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. + Show Spoiler +MAD = no one fired the weapon then we can talk, else gl. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
you then dismissed dead hand as speculation, cherry picking wiki definitions + Show Spoiler + On July 20 2016 04:36 Simberto wrote: Not really. The question is whether you prefer humanity existing and you giving up a point to humanity not existing, but at least you were right and got your revenge. Also, i would be almost certain that no nation on earth has a system that launches a massive nuclear strike without a human being involved at some place. Things like Dead Hand are designed to circumvent the loss of soviet leadership, but there is still a person in charge that ultimately decides to launch. From Wikipedia on Dead Hand: I am still not certain that we talk about the same thing. You are constantly saying that the deterrence is needed for MAD to work. Noone disputes that. The second strike capability needs to be realistic, and you need to be convincing when you claim that you will indeed launch that second strike when attacked. No one disputes that. That is how MAD works, and everyone understands that. It is not a hard concept to grasp. The question is not about that. The question is, you are in a situation where MAD has failed. For whatever reason. The others HAVE launched their missiles. Your decision to launch now has no effect on your deterrence earlier due to causality. Before this happened, you did everything to ensure that everyone believed that you would launch. But the missiles are flying. At this point you have exactly two choices: a) launch your own, for revenge, and destroy humanity to ensure that the others don't win. You lose, the others lose, everyone loses, humanity gone. b) don't launch. You lose, the others win, you don't get revenge, your civilization is gone, but humanity endures. you are in a situation where MAD has failed. For whatever reason. The others HAVE launched their missiles . | ||
KwarK
United States43991 Posts
MAD is a state of peace created between two hostile powers through the assurance that any attack will be met with the full destruction of your state, in the knowledge that it'll leave their state also destroyed. The purpose of MAD is not that both states are destroyed, it is that neither are destroyed. The goal is not mutually assured destruction, the goal is peace through the threat of destruction. Let us define it as follows "A state of peace maintained by an assurance of apocalyptic consequences should either party violate the peace". Now, to the bit you're getting confused by. If one party launches then at this point MAD has already failed. The objective of MAD is not to destroy both parties, it is to destroy neither party. Once one party has launched the peace is violated and MAD is obsolete. It doesn't matter why one party launched, maybe it was computer error, maybe they created an automated counteroffensive mechanism which had a buggy detection system, maybe they thought the moon was a NATO strike, maybe they just wanted everyone to die, at this point it doesn't make any difference at all. MAD is a strategy for avoiding a nuclear strike, if a nuclear strike has happened then the MAD rulebook no longer applies because no amount of proving that your second strike is every bit as apocalyptic can undo their first strike. Their first strike has already been launched. I'm not saying that one ought not to follow the strategy of MAD to the utmost before the enemy has launched, making assurances of the dire consequences and ensuring full second strike capability with protocols in place to guarantee the destruction of the enemy should they strike. You should absolutely do that. MAD depends on that stuff to endure. But the success condition for MAD is "nobody launches". The entire policy of MAD has no success condition after one party has already launched due to causality. This isn't philosophical or even very confusing. If the success condition for MAD has already been rendered unobtainable due to causality then continuing to follow it with no hope of achieving that success is absurd. No amount of launching a devastating second strike is going to unlaunch their first strike, at that point you're just killing people. That you'd still do it on principle, even when the stakes were escalated to the extinction of the entire species, is baffling to me. This isn't a complicated game theory situation. Hell, make a game theory box. Box---------------------------------------Party A launches------------------Party A does not launch Party B launches--------------------Extinction of humanity-----------Half humanity wiped out Party B does not launch----------Half humanity wiped out--------Peace Obviously you want the 4th box, peace. But once party A launches you're restricted to just picking your favourite of the two policies. I am really not sure how you can possibly not be understanding this. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I've always had trouble with my neighbor, he's one of those dicks with a Ford Mustang that he cleans 1-2 times a week and he's the kinda guy who leaves at 5AM and accelerates very fast making a lot of noise despite the fact that this is a suburban area and a school zone. Anyway he's not the problem, but it may give you an indication about what kind of woman his wife is. They run a kindergarten in their home, and this woman is a complete lunatic. When we're outside, it's extremely common to hear her yell at the kids at the top of her lungs, and occasionally at her dog (which we've heard cry out as if she kicked it or something more than once). We generally can't see past the hedgerow/fence, but she'll often yell at them outside, and sometimes when they're inside we can hear her through open windows and doors. This morning, my roommate heard her yelling all morning starting at 8AM up until 11AM. Couldn't hear exactly what she said, but one time they had music and she yelled (with what seems to me like seething hatred for the kids) "I TOLD YOU TO DANCE". We speculate that she wants them to dance to get tired so that they nap around lunch time. When I got back home 30 minutes ago, guy was washing his car and through the garage I heard "I TOLD YOU TO STOP CRYING", something that I've heard her yell at them more than once over the years. Other examples of things I've heard were the basic "STOP DOING THAT" and "I TOLD YOU TO STOP RUNNING AROUND THE POOL" when they're (very rarely) outside. And note that their pool is not in the ground so running around it is perfectly harmless, they couldn't possibly fall in it. They just run around and scream which, you know, is what children do. She always tells them to be quiet. She tells them "SHUT YOUR MOUTH" (FERME TA BOUCHE, a very strange thing to say in French). And like I say they're very rarely outside, sometimes she goes out on the front yard around 4PM right before the parents are about to come pick up their kids, to posture like they're an actual kindergarten, but it seems like a very shitty place for those kids to be. She very frequently yells at kids who are crying telling them to stop crying, for God's sake. Now I can't imagine there's any physical abuse, but I think that unless those kids' parents are scum, they would hate to know how their kids are treated by this crazy hag. And I'm debating whether I should call children's services. It's just yelling... but it seems to be a constant barrage of it, especially on some days, and I imagine there's a lot of it that I don't hear because I'm mostly inside. I don't know that it's anything the children's services would do anything about, especially since there's much worse stuff happening to children, but fuck. I'm not kidding guys, when I say she yells at those kids like she hates them, I'm not kidding. It's pure rage in her voice. Rage. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
No seriously, how are kindergartens regulated in Canada? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 23 2016 02:36 OtherWorld wrote: Ferme ta bouche FTW ! No seriously, how are kindergartens regulated in Canada? Not a clue. The children's services thing is run by the province though, but they have a reputation for inaction outside of the most extreme cases. On July 23 2016 02:44 farvacola wrote: I would file a complaint if I were you. Not sure how it would work in Canada, but in most US states, that'd trigger an inspection and it sounds like they might find some shit. Hard to say if anything would come of that though. I think I may have to try... | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On July 23 2016 03:40 Djzapz wrote: Not a clue. The children's services thing is run by the province though, but they have a reputation for inaction outside of the most extreme cases. I think I may have to try... Go for it man. You're likely not the only neighbor to notice. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Cure vs sOs
SHIN vs ByuN
Replay Cast
GSL
Classic vs Solar
GuMiho vs Zoun
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
