I don't consider topological addressing to be a real problem. In fact I consider it to be an undesirable security concern.
Switches and routers are supposed to learn and adapt to optimal routes during the course of an exchange. That's PART of what the Internet is all about, and contributes to robustness. Robustness does not require perfect information all the time. On the contrary: adaptation is desirable and in fact a requirement, because you don't get both at the same time.
The DNS system is an enormous problem. The architecture is very flaky, totally insecure especially with the addition of DNSsec. relies on a very expensive, and in this case, I will say corrupt bureaucracy for the allocation of names and is a generally ill thought out and ineffective way for locating network objects.
Yes, DNS *is* and enormous problem, and I think you hit the nail on the head, but only inadvertently because you were in fact aiming at something else.
The Internet will never be "free" and secure until we have a robust and reliable distributed DNS. That means adaptation, as I mentioned earlier. But no other scheme can even possibly be "secure", because by definition, if you don't have distributed DNS, then DNS is under the central control of somebody.
So either trust "somebody", or develop a distributed DNS. There is no third option.
I just don't see the cost working out. On top of that if you have the car for 10-20 years it's going to be the same as having an old 8 track. Car NAV systems don't seem to age well, I don't see this keeping up with the times. 5G will be out before too much longer.
You mostly need to use science to see it, unless you live in unfortunate areas like the arctic. It still happens gradually enough that you can conveniently forget that things were ever different if you go by your trusty, truthy gut feeling.
Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet? The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Settlements for civil law and plea bargaining for criminal law. Both for the sole purpose of expediency, and intimidation and abuse.
Yes, good point. I could be wrong, but I do think that both of these schemes emerged from an honest desire to expedite actual justice. But over time, they got corrupted and distorted.
We're already seeing large scale changes. The crisis *is* actually occurring.
What, specifically, are these "large scale changes" you claim we're already seeing? I am sure many people would be interested to know, since most of us aren't seeing them.
But then, most of us don't see 6-foot rabbits, either. I suppose that isn't proof they don't exist.
You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.
Um... not to nitpick, but you might want to work on your wording a little. If "your environment" were accelerating at the same rate as you, in the same direction, you'd be weightless for a lot longer than "a very brief period of time".
Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.
I can accept some "in order to" laws. E.g., it's illegal to carry a gun in order to rob or murder someone.
It's generally hard to show intent, though, unless there is strong evidence of premeditation.
So, take robbing a bank as an example. If one wears a mask in order to rob a bank and then evade the authorities, I can see that being illegal. However, I believe that if it is going to be illegal it should be a crime in itself, not an "enhancement" of some other crime. I think "enhancements" (like for murdering someone with a gun rather than a knife) are bullshit political ideas, not justice.
I tend to agree with much of your thesis, but I found referencing a 'minority of states' to be be a weak argument.
It may be. I wrote "a minority of states" because that was what my reference showed: a minority of states.
When discussing the law, it is important to separate political divisions from population in the same way that the House of Representatives is separate from the Senate.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Only that both have validity.
This is not a valid comparison. Guns and pacemakers are fundamentally different devices, and are used in fundamentally different ways.
Probably the most obvious differences out of many are (A) pacemakers are not mechanical devices, and (B) pacemakers are not "intermittent use" devices. But there are more. If a pacemaker fails just for an instant, it doesn't mean instant death. You have time to get to a hospital. Nobody is going to "take" your pacemaker and use it against you. Pacemakers do not sit in a drawer for a year then brought into instant use. Etc.
This is pretty much the epitome of an "apples vs oranges" comparison.
It's all about the probabilities of various scenarios, and anyone failing to incorporate that that in their evaluation is not worth listening to.
The probabilities might surprise you.
It is true that police, for example, are shot more frequently than many people think with their own guns.
On the other hand, that represents such a small percentage of overall gun confrontations that it is not very statistically significant.
Statistically, the need to prevent "unauthorized" people from using your gun against you is vanishingly small. Yet for the sake of doing that, many people seem willing to compromise the ability to do something that is statistically vastly more likely: defend yourself with a gun.
It isn't just that the electronics are not yet up to snuff. Simply relying on anything powered by a battery reduces the reliability to well below that essential 99.999%. So at this particular moment in time, even trying to do this is probably a massive waste of effort.
Just like many of the current rube goldberg-ish "less-lethal weapons", the tech to make a "smart gun" just isn't there yet. Every entry in this field has it's list of failures and impracticalities.
I wouldn't exactly call Tasers "Rube Goldberg", but you have a point. Here's mine:
Correct, the tech isn't there yet. Because as I showed here last year, the weapon has to work for the authorized user approximately 99.999% of the time in order for this tech to be feasible. (Yes, I know that seems like an outrageous number, but there are solid statistical reasons for it.)
The problem isn't rejecting unauthorized users. The problem is that nobody has come close to being able to reliably reject unauthorized users while at the same time maintaining that 99.999% reliability for the authorized users.
There is no doubt whatever that it is a difficult task. And nobody is anywhere near achieving it yet.
Settlements are the main means by which the law is imposed in the United States.
Civil law, you mean.
And I think it's deplorable. Settlements can and often have been used for intimidation and abuse. Look at the recent copyright troll suits for instance.
As far as the US is concerned; Since in 2013 solar only accounted for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the electrical generation (that includes commercial and residential), and since they are variable supplies to start with that depend on the rest of the grid to be useful, I wouldn't worry too much about them crashing the grid.
I think more relevant, since this is supposed to be about "home and business" solar installations, is the question: "Why would you want your home or business solar installation available via the internet?"
Status reports? Maybe. But it's hardly difficult to secure something like that.
Especially since, apparently, they weren't playing with it nicely.
It's not a fishing expedition, for f*ck's sake, it's an exploratory mission. "Probably" imploded? WTF? The damned thing is on a tether. If you pull up the tether, and it's not there (even if part of it imploded), then you didn't have your tether secured properly.
Since you arenâ(TM)t calling NAS âoealarmistâ, itâ(TM)s great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that âoethe need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.â
I don't seem to recall having stated that either.
Where I am from, trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is considered antisocial behavior.
It takes more evidence than I have seen -- without credible counter-evidence -- before I conclude anything is "indisputable". It's a word I seldom if ever use, and I most certainly would not use it here.
Since I was pretty clearly referring to a small minority of states, I will stick by my comment, since 8 out of 50 is a small minority.
AND, I will remind that even where there are laws, in only a few places (see the link) are they laws against law abiding people wearing masks. With few exceptions it is about wearing them for illegal purposes.
Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.
My links show that this isn't just about the NAS, it's also NASA and dozens of other scientific organizations who agree that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
What you state is not logical. I wrote a comment about ALARMISTS, and how they jump on anything they find correlated with CO2, and say the correlation is "proof" of CO2-based warming. That's all I wrote. It's up above where others can see it.
YOU then came in, and tried to argue that NAS and others say that AGW is real.
Therefore, logically, you can only be doing 1 of 2 things:
(A) You are claiming that NAS and others are "alarmists" (which is most definitely NOT something I wrote above), or
(B) you are making a straw-man argument, because I was referring to alarmists, while you were referring to NAS and others.
And frankly, I don't give the slightest damn which one you meant, because either way you meant it, you STILL planted your foot firmly in your mouth.
Go away with your innuendo and/or straw-man arguments. You are making a huge to-do over something I DID NOT say.
No, what you did just now was tell ME that the National Academy of Sciences are "alarmists".
I didn't call them that; you just did. I was writing about "alarmists". You seem doggedly determined to characterize yourself and climate scientists as alarmists. I did not do that, you did.
From where I sit, all you have done here is open your mouth and stick your foot in it. Again.
Where is the refutation of what I actually wrote? You make a straw-man argument that says, in effect, that I'm trying to call scientists wrong. But in fact (it's right there above in black and white), all I said was that
Alarmists
try to call coincidences (or correllations) "proof".
First, by my comment above, I suggested no such thing. You are taking the context of my comment, tacking on some other context, and trying to suggest that coincidence is proof of something. I saw that site in somebody's Twitter post yesterday. Big deal.
Second, you also demonstrate pretty clearly that you are still doing something that many people would say strongly resembles online "stalking".
That isn't friendly behavior, and many people would consider that more than just a bit weird. When are you going to get off my ass and leave me alone? I don't stalk or harass YOU.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't consider topological addressing to be a real problem. In fact I consider it to be an undesirable security concern.
Switches and routers are supposed to learn and adapt to optimal routes during the course of an exchange. That's PART of what the Internet is all about, and contributes to robustness. Robustness does not require perfect information all the time. On the contrary: adaptation is desirable and in fact a requirement, because you don't get both at the same time.
The DNS system is an enormous problem. The architecture is very flaky, totally insecure especially with the addition of DNSsec. relies on a very expensive, and in this case, I will say corrupt bureaucracy for the allocation of names and is a generally ill thought out and ineffective way for locating network objects.
Yes, DNS *is* and enormous problem, and I think you hit the nail on the head, but only inadvertently because you were in fact aiming at something else.
The Internet will never be "free" and secure until we have a robust and reliable distributed DNS. That means adaptation, as I mentioned earlier. But no other scheme can even possibly be "secure", because by definition, if you don't have distributed DNS, then DNS is under the central control of somebody.
So either trust "somebody", or develop a distributed DNS. There is no third option.
I have no problem giving awesome speed to their own subsidiary content providers.
You should. The effects are insidious and would eventually undermine the whole idea of free (as in speech) communication.
Nothing short of Title II Common Carrier status for ISPs is acceptable. That's the way it should have been from the beginning.
I just don't see the cost working out. On top of that if you have the car for 10-20 years it's going to be the same as having an old 8 track. Car NAV systems don't seem to age well, I don't see this keeping up with the times. 5G will be out before too much longer.
This is how Detroit lost its shorts.
You mostly need to use science to see it, unless you live in unfortunate areas like the arctic. It still happens gradually enough that you can conveniently forget that things were ever different if you go by your trusty, truthy gut feeling.
Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet? The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
which is clearly meant to refer to a situation such as jumping off a wall on Earth.
No, because it does not describe jumping off a wall on Earth. It describes something else entirely. That was my point.
If you jump off a wall, nothing else is "accelerating with you". Not the ground, not the wall, not even the air.
Settlements for civil law and plea bargaining for criminal law. Both for the sole purpose of expediency, and intimidation and abuse.
Yes, good point. I could be wrong, but I do think that both of these schemes emerged from an honest desire to expedite actual justice. But over time, they got corrupted and distorted.
We're already seeing large scale changes. The crisis *is* actually occurring.
What, specifically, are these "large scale changes" you claim we're already seeing? I am sure many people would be interested to know, since most of us aren't seeing them.
But then, most of us don't see 6-foot rabbits, either. I suppose that isn't proof they don't exist.
You don't have to be in space to be weightless, just in an environment that is accelerating at the same rate as you in the same direction.
Um... not to nitpick, but you might want to work on your wording a little. If "your environment" were accelerating at the same rate as you, in the same direction, you'd be weightless for a lot longer than "a very brief period of time".
Because wearing a mask while committing a crime should not result in larger punishments; it makes no sense, and is yet another way for our Tough On Crime government to send people off to prison for as long as possible.
I can accept some "in order to" laws. E.g., it's illegal to carry a gun in order to rob or murder someone.
It's generally hard to show intent, though, unless there is strong evidence of premeditation.
So, take robbing a bank as an example. If one wears a mask in order to rob a bank and then evade the authorities, I can see that being illegal. However, I believe that if it is going to be illegal it should be a crime in itself, not an "enhancement" of some other crime. I think "enhancements" (like for murdering someone with a gun rather than a knife) are bullshit political ideas, not justice.
I tend to agree with much of your thesis, but I found referencing a 'minority of states' to be be a weak argument.
It may be. I wrote "a minority of states" because that was what my reference showed: a minority of states.
When discussing the law, it is important to separate political divisions from population in the same way that the House of Representatives is separate from the Senate.
I'm not saying you're wrong. Only that both have validity.
Pacemakers.
This is not a valid comparison. Guns and pacemakers are fundamentally different devices, and are used in fundamentally different ways.
Probably the most obvious differences out of many are (A) pacemakers are not mechanical devices, and (B) pacemakers are not "intermittent use" devices. But there are more. If a pacemaker fails just for an instant, it doesn't mean instant death. You have time to get to a hospital. Nobody is going to "take" your pacemaker and use it against you. Pacemakers do not sit in a drawer for a year then brought into instant use. Etc.
This is pretty much the epitome of an "apples vs oranges" comparison.
It's all about the probabilities of various scenarios, and anyone failing to incorporate that that in their evaluation is not worth listening to.
The probabilities might surprise you.
It is true that police, for example, are shot more frequently than many people think with their own guns.
On the other hand, that represents such a small percentage of overall gun confrontations that it is not very statistically significant.
Statistically, the need to prevent "unauthorized" people from using your gun against you is vanishingly small. Yet for the sake of doing that, many people seem willing to compromise the ability to do something that is statistically vastly more likely: defend yourself with a gun.
That is irrational.
Yes.
99.999% might be a little high. But there is no doubt at all that the requirement is higher than 99.99%.
I almost forgot to add:
It isn't just that the electronics are not yet up to snuff. Simply relying on anything powered by a battery reduces the reliability to well below that essential 99.999%. So at this particular moment in time, even trying to do this is probably a massive waste of effort.
Just like many of the current rube goldberg-ish "less-lethal weapons", the tech to make a "smart gun" just isn't there yet. Every entry in this field has it's list of failures and impracticalities.
I wouldn't exactly call Tasers "Rube Goldberg", but you have a point. Here's mine:
Correct, the tech isn't there yet. Because as I showed here last year, the weapon has to work for the authorized user approximately 99.999% of the time in order for this tech to be feasible. (Yes, I know that seems like an outrageous number, but there are solid statistical reasons for it.)
The problem isn't rejecting unauthorized users. The problem is that nobody has come close to being able to reliably reject unauthorized users while at the same time maintaining that 99.999% reliability for the authorized users.
There is no doubt whatever that it is a difficult task. And nobody is anywhere near achieving it yet.
Settlements are the main means by which the law is imposed in the United States.
Civil law, you mean.
And I think it's deplorable. Settlements can and often have been used for intimidation and abuse. Look at the recent copyright troll suits for instance.
As far as the US is concerned; Since in 2013 solar only accounted for less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the electrical generation (that includes commercial and residential), and since they are variable supplies to start with that depend on the rest of the grid to be useful, I wouldn't worry too much about them crashing the grid.
I think more relevant, since this is supposed to be about "home and business" solar installations, is the question: "Why would you want your home or business solar installation available via the internet?"
Status reports? Maybe. But it's hardly difficult to secure something like that.
I'm not buying you another one
Especially since, apparently, they weren't playing with it nicely.
It's not a fishing expedition, for f*ck's sake, it's an exploratory mission. "Probably" imploded? WTF? The damned thing is on a tether. If you pull up the tether, and it's not there (even if part of it imploded), then you didn't have your tether secured properly.
Since you arenâ(TM)t calling NAS âoealarmistâ, itâ(TM)s great that we can all agree with the National Academy of Sciences when they said that âoethe need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.â
I don't seem to recall having stated that either.
Where I am from, trying to put words in other peoples' mouths is considered antisocial behavior.
It takes more evidence than I have seen -- without credible counter-evidence -- before I conclude anything is "indisputable". It's a word I seldom if ever use, and I most certainly would not use it here.
I wouldn't describe this as a 'small minority'.
Since I was pretty clearly referring to a small minority of states, I will stick by my comment, since 8 out of 50 is a small minority.
AND, I will remind that even where there are laws, in only a few places (see the link) are they laws against law abiding people wearing masks. With few exceptions it is about wearing them for illegal purposes.
Well, guess what? It's not illegal to carry a gun around here either, but it IS very much illegal to use one for committing a crime.
So what?
My links show that this isn't just about the NAS, it's also NASA and dozens of other scientific organizations who agree that most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.
What you state is not logical. I wrote a comment about ALARMISTS, and how they jump on anything they find correlated with CO2, and say the correlation is "proof" of CO2-based warming. That's all I wrote. It's up above where others can see it.
YOU then came in, and tried to argue that NAS and others say that AGW is real.
Therefore, logically, you can only be doing 1 of 2 things:
(A) You are claiming that NAS and others are "alarmists" (which is most definitely NOT something I wrote above), or
(B) you are making a straw-man argument, because I was referring to alarmists, while you were referring to NAS and others.
And frankly, I don't give the slightest damn which one you meant, because either way you meant it, you STILL planted your foot firmly in your mouth.
Go away with your innuendo and/or straw-man arguments. You are making a huge to-do over something I DID NOT say.
No, what you did just now was tell ME that the National Academy of Sciences are "alarmists".
I didn't call them that; you just did. I was writing about "alarmists". You seem doggedly determined to characterize yourself and climate scientists as alarmists. I did not do that, you did.
From where I sit, all you have done here is open your mouth and stick your foot in it. Again.
Where is the refutation of what I actually wrote? You make a straw-man argument that says, in effect, that I'm trying to call scientists wrong. But in fact (it's right there above in black and white), all I said was that
Alarmists
try to call coincidences (or correllations) "proof".
Are you, or those other scientists, "alarmists"?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
s/that suggesting/BY suggesting
Two more points:
First, by my comment above, I suggested no such thing. You are taking the context of my comment, tacking on some other context, and trying to suggest that coincidence is proof of something. I saw that site in somebody's Twitter post yesterday. Big deal.
Second, you also demonstrate pretty clearly that you are still doing something that many people would say strongly resembles online "stalking".
That isn't friendly behavior, and many people would consider that more than just a bit weird. When are you going to get off my ass and leave me alone? I don't stalk or harass YOU.
Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.
So, you try to prove your point that suggesting correlation = causation after all, eh?
Great example of what I was talking about.
Frankly, I didn't think you had the cojones to speak up again under your own name. We aren't done, yet.