Capability machines and tagged architectures have an interesting history. The first I know of is the Burroughs 6600 from the mid to late '60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Then there's the Intel 432 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the short-lived BiiN system that was a successor to the 432: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... But a lot of this dates back (like so much of computing) to Multics and its mandatory access control mechanisms.

I run my own email server, just for myself. Dealing with SPF/DKIM was a pain and the unending spam/malware email has ruined it but not going to give it up yet.. But yeah gmail is my secondary. The modern threat landscape (not just email) is a bit much for a single person to handle as a hobbyist. And it does nothing to protect a relative who is not on your system from being scammed.

what a non-issue. USA buys nuclear fuel from Russia, supporting the Russian side of the war, and then has the gall to tell poorer countries they are bad for buying Russisn fossil fuel. USA also still buys other Russian goods.

Hypocrisy, why would any sane country appease any US demands about trade with Ruusia? There is a whole world to develop alternative business in and more than half the human race lives in Asia.

i know some big fish former clients fleeing vmware. more than doubling the license was incredibly stupid money grab attempt

that is not proof but your speculation and not 'basic immunology'. Give me evidence of the human body making left handed protein seeking antibodies out of its right handed proteins.

the use of fossil fuels has more than doubled human lifespan and made immense improvements to health besides making modern civilization. Maybe you should factor the costs of not using them

so you picked the source with the biggest figure you could find, and it's tiny compared to any one of transport, manufacturing, construction and argriculture.

You lose, my point stands.

and you have proof that it isn't right handed twisted native proteins the antibodies are going after?

or you could look up facts, 2024-2025 wasn't too bad at all for effectiveness, for children 32-60% for outpatient visits and 63-78% for hospitalizations, while for adults, it was 36-54% for outpatient visits and 41-55% for hospitalizations.

Not as useless as you imagine. As you get old the flu shot becomes a wiser and wiser choice.

I

Ha! Same thing I thought. The reality, whether you're talking New Orleans or anyplace else is -- the money gets spent to repair and protect the areas that bring in the most continued wealth. Racism has nothing to do with this.

If you have an area that's full of tourist traffic or that continually draws in the super-wealthy for amenities like the great golf courses or waterfront or ?? You've got an area that generates enough revenue, it cost-justifies having to rebuild there occasionally when natural disasters strike.

Everyone else is living there at their own risk, really.

To be honest, I noted LONG ago that "withdrawing cash from out-of-network ATMs likely has a fairly big cost" and tried to avoid it. I never kept up with exactly what those fees were, after that. I simply learned to plan ahead better. If I need cash, I tend to take it out from my own bank or credit union and if I need it broken up into smaller bills? I try to spend it someplace that has to give me cash back on the purchase.

Last I checked though, most big credit unions are part of a cooperative network so you can use any of their ATMs without any fees (at least up to, say, 20 transactions per month).

Sure! Except I found that Claude Opus 4.1 was able to solve it. And not just this very simple syllogism but I tried a more complex one from a novel of Heinlein's and it showed a logical proof and got (or nearly got) the answer. By pasting in the rest of the chapter I got it from, it solved it. Here is my chat. I think the point is, the LLM itself is a pattern matcher but enough capabilities have been bolted on to the extent that it can indeed solve logical puzzles. It may not "understand" them or be very smart, but on the other hand it can fake it so well it is hard to tell from an undergrad in this case. I think considering the amount of money going into these things, this minimal kind of logic puzzle can be expected to be solved. It appears to be using some standard mathematical logic prover. A more difficult reasoning task would be needed to break it.

Me:
Here is another syllogism. Please solve it.
1. Everything, not absolutely ugly, may be kept in a drawing room
2. Nothing, that is encrusted with salt, is ever quite dry
3. Nothing should be kept in a drawing room, unless it is free from damp
4. Time-traveling machines are always kept near the sea
5. Nothing, that is what you expect it to be, can be absolutely ugly
6. Whatever is kept near the sea gets encrusted with salt.

Claude:
Let me work through this step-by-step syllogism carefully.

First, let me clarify the premises
Everything, not absolutely ugly, may be kept in a drawing room
Nothing, that is encrusted with salt, is ever quite dry
Nothing should be kept in a drawing room, unless it is free from damp
Time-traveling machines are always kept near the sea
Nothing, that is what you expect it to be, can be absolutely ugly
Whatever is kept near the sea gets encrusted with salt
Converting to logical form
Let me define:

AU = absolutely ugly
DR = may be kept in drawing room
ES = encrusted with salt
D = quite dry
FD = free from damp
NS = kept near the sea
TTM = time-traveling machine
EXP = what you expect it to be
The premises become:

AU DR (if not absolutely ugly, then may be kept in drawing room)
ES D (if encrusted with salt, then not quite dry)
DR FD (if kept in drawing room, then must be free from damp)
TTM NS (time-traveling machines are kept near the sea)
EXP AU (if it's what you expect, then not absolutely ugly)
NS ES (if kept near sea, then gets encrusted with salt)
Chain of reasoning
Starting with time-traveling machines:

TTM NS (premise 4)
NS ES (premise 6)
Therefore: TTM ES (time-traveling machines get encrusted with salt)
From encrusted with salt:

ES D (premise 2)
Therefore: TTM D (time-traveling machines are not quite dry)
Since "not quite dry" means "damp" (has dampness):

TTM FD (time-traveling machines are not free from damp)
From premise 3 (contrapositive):

FD DR (if not free from damp, then cannot be kept in drawing room)
Therefore: TTM DR (time-traveling machines cannot be kept in drawing room)
From premise 1 (contrapositive):

DR AU (if cannot be kept in drawing room, then must be absolutely ugly)
Therefore: TTM AU (time-traveling machines are absolutely ugly)
From premise 5 (contrapositive):

AU EXP (if absolutely ugly, then not what you expect it to be)
Therefore: TTM EXP
Conclusion
Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be.

This is a Victorian-style logic puzzle (reminiscent of Lewis Carroll's logical games), and the conclusion is that time-traveling machines, through the chain of being near the sea, getting encrusted with salt, becoming damp, and therefore absolutely ugly, cannot be what you expect them to be.

If this is solved while standing in front of a car, what is your conclusion?

Standing in front of a car doesn't change the logical conclusion of the syllogism itself - the chain of reasoning still leads to "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be."

However, I think you might be asking what I can conclude about the car itself. Let me consider:

About the car
The syllogism doesn't mention cars at all, so I cannot draw any logical conclusions about the car from the given premises. The car is simply not part of this logical system.

Unless... are you suggesting the car might be a time-traveling machine? In that case:

If the car IS a time-traveling machine, then according to our conclusion, it is not what you expect it to be
If the car is NOT a time-traveling machine, then the syllogism tells us nothing about it
The context puzzle
The fact that you specify "while standing in front of a car" is intriguing. This could be:

A red herring - the car is irrelevant to the logic puzzle
A hint that the car might be a time-traveling machine (like a DeLorean from "Back to the Future")
A test to see if I stick to the logical conclusion regardless of physical context
My conclusion remains
The syllogism's conclusion is still: "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be."

The car's presence doesn't alter the logical chain unless we have additional information connecting the car to the premises (such as "this car is a time-traveling machine").

What did you have in mind with the car?

Me:
Here is the rest of the chapter. It is from chapter 34 of Robert Heinlein's The Number of the Beast. which is available for free download here: https://metallicman.com/laoban...
He blinked at the list. “The conclusion is true?” he asked.“Yes.”For the first time he stared openly at Gay Deceiver. “That, then – I infer – is a ‘time-traveling machine.”“Yes although it does other things as well.”“It is not what I expected it to be although I am not sure what I expected a time-traveling machine to be.”I pulled his handkerchief off my face. “Do you want to take a ride, Mr. Dodgson?”The young don looked wistful. “I am sorely tempted, Captain. But I am responsible for three little girls. So I must thank you for your hospitality and bid you good-bye. Will you offer my apologies to Professor and Mrs. Burroughs and explain that duty calls me?”

Claude:
Ah, brilliant! This completely recontextualizes the logic puzzle. Now I understand why you asked about standing in front of a car.

The full context
In Heinlein's novel, the characters are standing in front of Gay Deceiver (their car/spacecraft), and they've just presented Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) with his own syllogism. The conclusion - "Time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be" - is being demonstrated literally right in front of him!

The meta-joke
Heinlein is being wonderfully clever here:

Gay Deceiver IS a time-traveling machine (among other things)
It looks like a car - definitely not what anyone would expect a time machine to look like
Dodgson (Carroll) arrives at the logical conclusion through pure reasoning
Then discovers the conclusion is literally true about the vehicle right in front of him
He even says: "It is not what I expected it to be... although I am not sure what I expected a time-traveling machine to be"
My revised conclusion when standing in front of the car
If I'm standing in front of Gay Deceiver specifically, then:

The syllogism proves that time-traveling machines are not what you expect them to be
Gay Deceiver is confirmed as a time-traveling machine
Therefore, Gay Deceiver is not what you expect it to be (which is true - it looks like an ordinary car but can travel through dimensions and time)
This is a beautiful example of Heinlein playing with logic, literature, and meta-fiction - having Lewis Carroll solve his own style of logic puzzle about the very science fiction vehicle he's looking at. The abstract logical conclusion becomes concrete reality.

has to be true, moobs grew bigger during the lockdown/masking ! and Lee Pace started looking hot even to straight men!

Climate change means less months my extra masks need be used as facewarmers. Thus I could be using them even a year from this winter, w00h00

the current variants are mild; we can call them the sniffles. No vaccine needed. The vulnerable to those could as well be felled by one of the 200 viruses we call The Common Cold.

Get your flu shot instead.