Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not MAD. (Score 1) 337

by Sabriel (#47989965) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

MIRV = Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle. So each of those 1500 MIRVs carries multiple nuclear warheads. Need five mid-sized nukes to wipe out NYC? No problem. Ten for LA? Still no problem. One missile each, just program in your preferred detonation pattern for the warheads:

Here's a long-exposure photo of a single "Peacekeeper" missile dropping eight independent warheads (unarmed in this case):

Comment: Re:Not MAD. (Score 2) 337

by Sabriel (#47971887) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

I had understood the US to have the most with some 6000, and other than western europe and Russia I didnt think anyone else had any.

From the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Russia and US have rough parity, then it's France/China/Britain, then Israel/Pakistan/India, then North Korea, in descending orders of magnitude.

Comment: Re:The review ecosystem is good and truly broken.. (Score 4, Interesting) 249

by Sabriel (#47962547) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

Why not have each reviewer's rating for a given item/location be statistically compared/weighted to that reviewer's history of ratings, e.g. a 5-star rating from someone who consistently gives 5-star ratings for everything could be valued less than someone who only does so some of the time, with weighting for older reviewers, anonymous reviewers, etc. Basically the equivalent of a bayesian spam filter, except for reviewers instead of mail. Yes, it won't be perfect, but can it at least be better than what we have now?

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 540

by Sabriel (#47881467) Attached to: Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

That's (state) socialism, not communism. I've pondered that communism ("characterized by the absence of social classes, money and the state") should be easier to achieve via capitalism than via (state) socialism, since the former more strongly encourages the technological innovations required to provide the means of eliminating scarcity that communism requires to be at all practical.

That, so far to me, was the deepest irony of the USSR: to eliminate the State, they created the State, and It was doomed from the beginning; whether or not communism may one day be feasible, our 20th Century selves lacked (and still lack) the technology to compensate for our psychology.

The USA and similar "capitalist" nations do have their own irony: one of their economic foundations is the very non-capitalist structure of copyright and patent law (think about it: fundamentally, the state dictates who may use any idea, enforcing artificial scarcities and artificially captive markets). It will be interesting to see if/how they overcome this flaw.

Comment: Re:Wrong Title (Score 1) 499

by Sabriel (#47879993) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

Hmm. Also from Wikipedia, later in that same article:

This issue did come before the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court, "reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states."

As for your assertion that there is no right to overthrow the government, that is not strictly true. Note that the Second specifies not just any "state", but a "free state". A lawful government should have nothing to fear from the Second. An unlawful government, on the other hand, one would hope not so much.

Comment: Re:in other words (Score 1) 194

by Sabriel (#47682607) Attached to: The Billion-Dollar Website

But if I am to support that system with my tax dollars, the people who use it have to do their part to try to live healthy lives. Drug addicts and alcoholics get treatment then go into rehab, overweight people are put on a healthy diet and exercise regimen, and so on. But since that would violate people's rights, and I can't force my beliefs onto others, even when they are using my tax dollars, I don't support a public health system.

I don't get it. How would that violate rights? When society assumes an obligation to offer help to its members, members who seek out that help to correct their personal failings assume the reciprocal obligation of not "crying wolf" (not quite the phrase I want to use, but I hope it's close enough that you get what I'm trying to convey). "Society, I'm addicted / obese, please treat me." "Our obligation is that we will treat you, but your obligation is that you'll accept our help in avoiding this situation in the future." "Okay." The whole basis of society is the social contract - we help you, you help us!

The technicalities of deciding when any given person is not meeting that reciprocal obligation should only impinge on the general availability of a public health system to the extent that the statistical occurrence of recalcitrant individuals would make the system a net burden or benefit to society. And even then, that is not necessarily an argument to completely reject a public health system instead of the less drastic response of narrowing its scope.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson