Bah! I feel the extreme total opposite. When he kicks the robot, I'm deeply disturbed by the fact that the robot is undaunted.
I've always chalked it up to an uncanny valley reaction. The buzzing noise of the on-board 2-cycle engine (power generator?), combined with the freakish, threatening movements raises my hackles every time.
Every time I see robots like Big Dog, I feel a visceral instinct brewing within me, prompting me to find ways to annihilate them with rocket propelled grenades.
...and besides, any self-respecting movie buff knows that all the best movies are shot in anamorphic widescreen, with no less than a 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
Not only that, why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?
Not until we know who Satoshi Nakamoto is. Until then, bitcoin is just another internet clusterfuck.
Don't tell me it's not relevant who he/she is. It is relevant. It's a clear demonstration of our own incompetence. Without that information in hand, we're nothing more than rats following a pied piper.
> why should bitcoin be enshrined as the only special crypto-currency worthy of recognition?
I agree, but the reason you state has nothing to do with it. Who the fuck cares who Satoshi is? Why does it matter, given that the protocol operates independently from its original author and research can be done on it without his/her permission? Finally, who is this we you keep talking about?
The point here is that Satoshi is believed to have access to wallets with a great number of early-mined bitcoins. The wallets were unused since a few years and can be used to suddenly increase the amount of bitcoin in circulation, which'd devalue it significantly.
If it was Hal Finney, then we'd actually know who it was. There would be a degree of closure.
Without that closure, there's a mysterious gaping black hole that only adds to all the other uncertainties that come naturally with a new frontier like crypto-currency.
If we can't answer fundamental questions about the bandwagon we're expected to jump on, worse yet, when we're told that we shouldn't even ask, then it is correct to be suspicious about the motivations of those who might herd us, and toward what ends they might march us into.
I can't claim to know anything about naval nuclear engineering. My intuition tells me that avoiding runaway criticality and avoiding crew contamination are high priorities. Based on this I can think of 4 significant questions off the top of my head:
1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation? Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no? Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
> 1. How might they ever know to avoid a massive radiation plume they weren't expecting? Particularly if the plume is very large and expanding faster than they can move the ship?
The crucial assumption here is that the crew supposedly wasn't expecting a radioactive fallout plume. From personal experience I can vouch that the crew is trained to deal with radioactive fallout. Given the Fukushima circumstances, I truly cannot imagine that the ship wasn't on alert for a radioactive plume, and would have either navigated around it or taken appropriate precautions such as setting Material Condition Zebra (closing hatches, buttoning down the ventilation system, and so on); activating the water-wash-down system; etc.
2. How much of the crew would be informed of such a situation?
The down-in-the-weeds details likely would have disseminated to the people who would deal with specific issues.
As to the big picture, I'm confident the CO would have told the entire crew the basics of what was going on -- not least so that they would be able to spot apparent anomalies and report them up the chain of command. Sailors at sea are keenly aware that they're "all in the same boat."
Would there be a risk of panic or mutiny, if all of the crew were permitted to fully understand such circumstances?
No.
(OK, I've been out for a long time, and I didn't know every single person in the Navy even then, so I can't say for certain, but ... no.)
3. Given that this is a military vessel, if they are ordered into harm's way (or perhaps ordered to assist since they've already unwittingly suffered irreparable harm), would they say no?
That's a very imaginative hypothetical question, with no indication that it bears any relationship to the facts. The U.S. Navy has a tradition of doing the needful (as our British friends sometimes say). See, e.g., the self-sacrificing heroism of the USS Johnston, USS Hoel, USS Samuel B. Roberts, and USS Heerman at the Battle off Samar on Oct. 25, 1944 [1].
Would careers be protected and defended if orders were obeyed?
Yes.
4. Would it be possible to fake 70 cases of thyroid polyps, leukemia, testicular cancer and uterine bleeding so bad it requires transfusions?
Probably not -- but that assumes facts not in evidence, namely that there actually were 70 such cases attributable to radiation. One thing I learned in years of doing litigation was not to believe everything you hear or read. For all I know, among a crew of around 5,000, the 70 cases mentioned might conceivably be within the bounds of statistical probability.
...and as an aside, given that we're introducing the idea that everything might be a hoax, one more question: Given what we've learned about the NSA and Facebook over the past year, how probable is it that a Navy-nuke Facebook group might be astroturfed into an echo chamber aligned with a particular agenda?
I doubt it -- U.S. Navy sailors are loyal but independent-minded, with very-sensitive and finely-calibrated bullshit detectors, coupled with a willingness to call bullshit when they encounter it.
Given huge number of possible molecules and the relatively slow nature of wafting them around the room, I suspect they plan to pack a lot more that 1 bit of information in each molecule!
