My thoughts about the bow were speculative. Thanks for clearing that up.
My comments about the bilge were in regard to the pictures linked to in the original post, which did not show any holes at the bottom of the bulkheads for the water to pass through. I thought that was a little strange.
Speaking of which, I have some serious questions about some of their design decisions.
Example: it has a square stern, even though there is no necessity for a motor mount or the like. A rudder, sure, but that does not prevent the construction of a "boat tail" design, which is arguably much more efficient.
The slanted deck puzzled me at first, until I realized that it was for the solar panels, being in the North Atlantic.
The reverse direction of the bow does have me puzzled, though. It would seem to tend to drive the tip underwater (even if just a little), which could be a significant additional source of drag.
I saw no provision for bilge drainage or pump at all; presumably they have a lot of confidence in their waterproofing (motor shaft, rudder controls such as cable or rods). If I had done the design this would have been a very important consideration. It is an obvious potential point of failure. Even if your motor and electronics continue to function, if your hull fills with water you will be going slow indeed.
And the bilge issues is not just something "I didn't notice". It's baked into the design. There is no provision at the bottom of the bulkheads for water to move at all, for example. You don't see that in "real world" boats. Not even in submarines.
This is a war that the government has LOST. More than once. I really have to wonder why they keep trying.
Maybe the intelligence community is taking that word "intelligence" a bit too literally. They are NOT smarter than everybody else. And in fact that's why they try to be sneaky.
doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".
In the places where it has been decriminalized, the problems associated with the use of drugs like heroin were not just significantly but drastically reduced.
That doesn't prove cause and effect but it has been consistent enough to suggest that inductive logic is appropriate here.
"ISO can be bought, as shown so well by Microsoft. They've lost any trust they ever had."
Perhaps that's true. But the fact that NIST has been the instrument of Government interference with cryptography has been known since the early 90s, with the Skipjack/Clipper debacle.
" A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. "
Further, there's another use here: by getting one of those cheap PCRs and copying the "signature" DNA, you can make copies of the product and sell them as "genuine"... after all, the tag shows up as an "individual, unique" number in the "national database" that the company keeps.
Far from being much in the way of security, this actually hurts the consumer because what they really get is a false sense of security. It's security theater, not much better than that of the TSA.
"The problem being solved there is the opposite of the problem here. By tagging your stuff with the DNA, you are saying that it is yours. A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. "
No, it isn't. Not completely, anyway.
If you can show that the DNA marker is not "unique", you defeat its entire purpose. So spraying it around is actually an effective countermeasure.
"Unless you have your own synthesizer to make these micro markers yourself and you are able to make a zillion different serial numbers, you spray bottle of "stadium dna" won't help a thing here. "
See my other post from yesterday. I found some used PCR machines on Ebay for as little as $250.
Today DNA, "synthesized" or not, is ridiculously easy to replicate. It doesn't have to be "re-synthesized", it only needs to be copied. And all you need for copying is a small sample of the original and one of those PCRs.
Further, copying today is ridiculously cheap, compared to just a few years ago.
Using it for security purposes is misguided at best. I won't use the word I'm really thinking.
"We all know it's very difficult for DNA to be replicated, and it certainly isn't self-replicating, so it's not as if some party could obtain the DNA, replicate it, and then place it on their counterfeit product."
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?:)
The comments say you can get a used PCR thing for less than $1000. I wasn't too sure, so I looked.
"... it's gonna be bad. Real bad. And because its gonna be bad, we're gonna charge you an arm and two legs for coverage."
This illustrates exactly how NOT "unbiased" insurance companies are.
Gonna charge higher rates for hurricanes, due to "global warming"? Hmmm... let's see. We have been in a long (actually 30 years or more) slump in global cyclonic energy (hurricane-like events). Yes, ONE season saw quite a few in the North Atlantic, which just coincidentally happens to be where cities are. But that's essentially a random event. In fact the 2005-2006 season mentioned actually saw LESS cyclonic energy than recent prior years, and it has kept going down. Shit happens, but there is no "trend".
As further evidence, even the IPCC has pulled back on its predictions of more and worse storms. In fact, the previewers have been saying they removed any mention of it at all from this year's report.
So this isn't "unbiased science" at all. It is simply "Sure, we'll go with the scare stories. We can charge higher premiums that way."
"So customers should STFU? I'm afraid I still don't get your point."
What's to not get? Let me repeat in fewer words: Fine. They don't want U.S. surveillance. So... they can build their own infrastructure, rather than renting it from someone they don't trust (probably for good reason). I even stated that they probably had good reason to complain. But... I guess the second part of my point is that they probably aren't going to get what they want by complaining.
So I don't understand what you don't understand. If you don't like the place you are renting, you can go elsewhere or build your own place, right? Where are we disagreeing?
"It is not unjustified to inquire about a source no matter what you may feel about the subject. For all your accusations of people being rude all you had to reply with is "I don't have a source", instead you went on a defensive rant about it."
You're doing the same damned thing as that other person. I did not say it was unjustified to ask for sources. But I repeat: I said I had read something. I didn't say "studies show" or "evidence proves" or anything of that nature. If somebody wants to ask politely whether I have a link, fine.
But saying "[citation needed]" over something I read last week is stupid. This isn't Wikipedia. And I'm not being "defensive", I'm simply saying that what the other person did was stupid. I don't need to be defensive, because I haven't done anything I feel the need to be defensive about.
I should amend what I wrote above. I don't even care that they're complaining. To at least some degree, they probably have reason to complain.
BUT... at the same time, it's pretty obvious that if they want to be secure in their own communications, they're going to have to build their own infrastructure. I don't see how this is really something much worth debating.
"And is that not what they intend to do? And why would it be a problem for you if a US company wants to lay those non-US cables and lease them to them?"
I just got done telling you that it is NOT a problem for me.
"Besides, doesn't leasing imply that Brazil is still paying for them? It sounds like a normal business arrangement, rather than something "the US" picked up the tab for."
No. It implies that Brazil is paying RENT. As one of probably at least several other countries that are paying rent on the same transoceanic cable or cables. That does NOT imply that Brazil is "paying for it". That implies that SOMEBODY ELSE already paid for it, and Brazil is paying for the use of it.
Kind of like the difference between renting an apartment, and building your own house. I will say again: I have no problem at all if they want to build their own house. But don't rent an apartment and then say later you don't like the way it was built.
So: the statistics you read said something different from the statistics I read. I believe you.
BUT... "[citation needed]" IMPLIES that the person thinks I'm lying. No accusation, but the implication is real, and rude.
I did not make any claim to knowledge of fact. I simply said I read something. If you don't like that, fine. But don't try to demand proof of what I read last week or last month, because not only do I not have it here any more, it's a stupid thing to demand.
"Thisis either sad or hilarious, I'm still deciding. Basically, the "conversation" just went like this:
-Statistics I've seen say that birds double in value when transferred from bush to hand.
-Really? Where have you seen those numbers?
-Fuck you, I don't have to tell you."
NO. And this is why:
I stated that the statistics I read stated something. Forget what, that's not important.
Someone else said, "[citation needed]".
What you don't seem to get here, is that this is an unreasonable thing to say. I did not say "THIS IS FACT". I stated "this is what I read." So this person is, for all practical purposes, saying "Go find what you read last week and show me, or you're lying."
That is both rude, and unjustified.
If I had stated, "THIS here thing is a FACT, no denying it," then someone might be justified in asking me to cite sources. But to say "I read in the paper the other day" or some such, and to have someone else demand proof of it online, is ridiculous. I am not obligated -- morally, socially, or scientifically -- to prove to anybody that I actually read something the other day.
"I haven't followed up on this, but I'm sure other countries may have taken similar measures."
That may be so... and this is Slashdot, I don't really have the means here to go into all the history. So as much as I hate to say "trust me"... trust me. They will come to regret that decision. It is unworkable in the long run. Or at least, SO unworkable as to eventually make it obvious that was the wrong decision.
Deciding that way is unreasonable, and contrary to practicality, logic, AND common sense.
Reason and Practicality: Nobody who operates a web page or web business can reasonably know in advance who will visit. And partly for that reason, they cannot know what laws with which they are supposed to be in compliance. Do you really expect a website in Texas to know what the law is in some village in Sri Lanka? Hell no. But probably more to the point: you can't even reasonably expect them to know what laws (censorship, age, taxation) apply in some village in Massachusetts. Local, state, and even national laws vary, and change far too often.
Practicality and Logic: For taxation purposes, it is virtually impossible to track down all the local laws of visitors to the business. The only method that works is to find the laws that apply to the business, in its own state, and not try to vary transactions on the basis of where the customer resides.
Common sense: when someone visits a website, one party is passive ("come look at me!") and the other is taking voluntary action. Yes, you can get unwittingly linked to a site but nothing forces you to stay there and read or watch. Nobody is shoving it in your face. YOU are going THERE, voluntarily. Making the other end responsible for your actions, when they can neither know your laws or control your actions, is just plain ridiculous.
How are you currently paying for Brazilian internet connections?
I'm not. U.S. Corporations laid the cables and built the infrastructure. The Brazilian government leases them.
I am NOT saying "Oh... all this surveillance is fine." I am simply saying: okay. They don't like it, they can lay their own trans-oceanic cables and build their own infrastructure. No problem here.
And I don't even mind them complaining. They probably have reason to complain. But continuing to complain won't get much done. Laying their own cables might.
No. You might need a citation, but I don't need to deliver it.
I stated a truth: the statistics that I read said what I claimed they said. Take that for as much or as little evidence as you like. But this is NOT Wikipedia, and this is NOT a scientific forum of debate. You might need a citation, but I am not obligated to spend an hour finding it for you.
So if you really NEED that citation, I suggest you go look it the fuck up.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think we don't see how much damage these things can do to society in a long-term look at things."
I wasn't referring to speculation, but rather to research that studied that very thing.
Read The Portugal Experiment, for example. You might have to hunt a bit but you can find it online.
"Just to answer a few questions of yours,"
Hey, thanks for addressing my questions.
My thoughts about the bow were speculative. Thanks for clearing that up.
My comments about the bilge were in regard to the pictures linked to in the original post, which did not show any holes at the bottom of the bulkheads for the water to pass through. I thought that was a little strange.
"tight pussy" be translated?
"The cat has drunk a saucer of wine."
Speaking of which, I have some serious questions about some of their design decisions.
Example: it has a square stern, even though there is no necessity for a motor mount or the like. A rudder, sure, but that does not prevent the construction of a "boat tail" design, which is arguably much more efficient.
The slanted deck puzzled me at first, until I realized that it was for the solar panels, being in the North Atlantic.
The reverse direction of the bow does have me puzzled, though. It would seem to tend to drive the tip underwater (even if just a little), which could be a significant additional source of drag.
I saw no provision for bilge drainage or pump at all; presumably they have a lot of confidence in their waterproofing (motor shaft, rudder controls such as cable or rods). If I had done the design this would have been a very important consideration. It is an obvious potential point of failure. Even if your motor and electronics continue to function, if your hull fills with water you will be going slow indeed.
And the bilge issues is not just something "I didn't notice". It's baked into the design. There is no provision at the bottom of the bulkheads for water to move at all, for example. You don't see that in "real world" boats. Not even in submarines.
I should add:
This is a war that the government has LOST. More than once. I really have to wonder why they keep trying.
Maybe the intelligence community is taking that word "intelligence" a bit too literally. They are NOT smarter than everybody else. And in fact that's why they try to be sneaky.
doesn't have a good control framework like Cigarettes/alcohol which are legal and profitable for the government, especially here (Canada) with the "SIN TAXES".
In the places where it has been decriminalized, the problems associated with the use of drugs like heroin were not just significantly but drastically reduced.
That doesn't prove cause and effect but it has been consistent enough to suggest that inductive logic is appropriate here.
"ISO can be bought, as shown so well by Microsoft. They've lost any trust they ever had."
Perhaps that's true. But the fact that NIST has been the instrument of Government interference with cryptography has been known since the early 90s, with the Skipjack/Clipper debacle.
... And modded down for mentioning another BS mod!!
" A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. "
Further, there's another use here: by getting one of those cheap PCRs and copying the "signature" DNA, you can make copies of the product and sell them as "genuine"... after all, the tag shows up as an "individual, unique" number in the "national database" that the company keeps.
Far from being much in the way of security, this actually hurts the consumer because what they really get is a false sense of security. It's security theater, not much better than that of the TSA.
"The problem being solved there is the opposite of the problem here. By tagging your stuff with the DNA, you are saying that it is yours. A thief isn't going to make something appear to be yours, because there's no value when fencing goods in proving that something is stolen. "
No, it isn't. Not completely, anyway.
If you can show that the DNA marker is not "unique", you defeat its entire purpose. So spraying it around is actually an effective countermeasure.
"Unless you have your own synthesizer to make these micro markers yourself and you are able to make a zillion different serial numbers, you spray bottle of "stadium dna" won't help a thing here. "
See my other post from yesterday. I found some used PCR machines on Ebay for as little as $250.
Today DNA, "synthesized" or not, is ridiculously easy to replicate. It doesn't have to be "re-synthesized", it only needs to be copied. And all you need for copying is a small sample of the original and one of those PCRs.
Further, copying today is ridiculously cheap, compared to just a few years ago.
Using it for security purposes is misguided at best. I won't use the word I'm really thinking.
Woohoo! Modded down again, apparently because I challenged some common "global warming" mythology. But everything I stated above is demonstrably true.
I wonder if I can set a record on BS mods.
"We all know it's very difficult for DNA to be replicated, and it certainly isn't self-replicating, so it's not as if some party could obtain the DNA, replicate it, and then place it on their counterfeit product."
Do I detect a note of sarcasm? :)
The comments say you can get a used PCR thing for less than $1000. I wasn't too sure, so I looked.
Sure enough, it looks like Ebay is a pretty good source.
"... it's gonna be bad. Real bad. And because its gonna be bad, we're gonna charge you an arm and two legs for coverage."
This illustrates exactly how NOT "unbiased" insurance companies are.
Gonna charge higher rates for hurricanes, due to "global warming"? Hmmm... let's see. We have been in a long (actually 30 years or more) slump in global cyclonic energy (hurricane-like events). Yes, ONE season saw quite a few in the North Atlantic, which just coincidentally happens to be where cities are. But that's essentially a random event. In fact the 2005-2006 season mentioned actually saw LESS cyclonic energy than recent prior years, and it has kept going down. Shit happens, but there is no "trend".
As further evidence, even the IPCC has pulled back on its predictions of more and worse storms. In fact, the previewers have been saying they removed any mention of it at all from this year's report.
So this isn't "unbiased science" at all. It is simply "Sure, we'll go with the scare stories. We can charge higher premiums that way."
"So customers should STFU? I'm afraid I still don't get your point."
What's to not get? Let me repeat in fewer words: Fine. They don't want U.S. surveillance. So... they can build their own infrastructure, rather than renting it from someone they don't trust (probably for good reason). I even stated that they probably had good reason to complain. But... I guess the second part of my point is that they probably aren't going to get what they want by complaining.
So I don't understand what you don't understand. If you don't like the place you are renting, you can go elsewhere or build your own place, right? Where are we disagreeing?
"It is not unjustified to inquire about a source no matter what you may feel about the subject. For all your accusations of people being rude all you had to reply with is "I don't have a source", instead you went on a defensive rant about it."
You're doing the same damned thing as that other person. I did not say it was unjustified to ask for sources. But I repeat: I said I had read something. I didn't say "studies show" or "evidence proves" or anything of that nature. If somebody wants to ask politely whether I have a link, fine.
But saying "[citation needed]" over something I read last week is stupid. This isn't Wikipedia. And I'm not being "defensive", I'm simply saying that what the other person did was stupid. I don't need to be defensive, because I haven't done anything I feel the need to be defensive about.
"Let me help you:"
NO. Let ME help YOU.
Go back to the bill you linked to, and find where it says that it applies only to internet businesses in California.
Hint: IT DOESN'T. It says it applies to internet services TO people who RESIDE in California. That was my whole damned point.
Have these WHOOSH moments much?
I should amend what I wrote above. I don't even care that they're complaining. To at least some degree, they probably have reason to complain.
BUT... at the same time, it's pretty obvious that if they want to be secure in their own communications, they're going to have to build their own infrastructure. I don't see how this is really something much worth debating.
"And is that not what they intend to do? And why would it be a problem for you if a US company wants to lay those non-US cables and lease them to them?"
I just got done telling you that it is NOT a problem for me.
"Besides, doesn't leasing imply that Brazil is still paying for them? It sounds like a normal business arrangement, rather than something "the US" picked up the tab for."
No. It implies that Brazil is paying RENT. As one of probably at least several other countries that are paying rent on the same transoceanic cable or cables. That does NOT imply that Brazil is "paying for it". That implies that SOMEBODY ELSE already paid for it, and Brazil is paying for the use of it.
Kind of like the difference between renting an apartment, and building your own house. I will say again: I have no problem at all if they want to build their own house. But don't rent an apartment and then say later you don't like the way it was built.
Okay.
So: the statistics you read said something different from the statistics I read. I believe you.
BUT... "[citation needed]" IMPLIES that the person thinks I'm lying. No accusation, but the implication is real, and rude.
I did not make any claim to knowledge of fact. I simply said I read something. If you don't like that, fine. But don't try to demand proof of what I read last week or last month, because not only do I not have it here any more, it's a stupid thing to demand.
"Thisis either sad or hilarious, I'm still deciding. Basically, the "conversation" just went like this:
-Statistics I've seen say that birds double in value when transferred from bush to hand.
-Really? Where have you seen those numbers?
-Fuck you, I don't have to tell you."
NO. And this is why:
I stated that the statistics I read stated something. Forget what, that's not important.
Someone else said, "[citation needed]".
What you don't seem to get here, is that this is an unreasonable thing to say. I did not say "THIS IS FACT". I stated "this is what I read." So this person is, for all practical purposes, saying "Go find what you read last week and show me, or you're lying."
That is both rude, and unjustified.
If I had stated, "THIS here thing is a FACT, no denying it," then someone might be justified in asking me to cite sources. But to say "I read in the paper the other day" or some such, and to have someone else demand proof of it online, is ridiculous. I am not obligated -- morally, socially, or scientifically -- to prove to anybody that I actually read something the other day.
Get it?
"I haven't followed up on this, but I'm sure other countries may have taken similar measures."
That may be so... and this is Slashdot, I don't really have the means here to go into all the history. So as much as I hate to say "trust me"... trust me. They will come to regret that decision. It is unworkable in the long run. Or at least, SO unworkable as to eventually make it obvious that was the wrong decision.
Deciding that way is unreasonable, and contrary to practicality, logic, AND common sense.
Reason and Practicality: Nobody who operates a web page or web business can reasonably know in advance who will visit. And partly for that reason, they cannot know what laws with which they are supposed to be in compliance. Do you really expect a website in Texas to know what the law is in some village in Sri Lanka? Hell no. But probably more to the point: you can't even reasonably expect them to know what laws (censorship, age, taxation) apply in some village in Massachusetts. Local, state, and even national laws vary, and change far too often.
Practicality and Logic: For taxation purposes, it is virtually impossible to track down all the local laws of visitors to the business. The only method that works is to find the laws that apply to the business, in its own state, and not try to vary transactions on the basis of where the customer resides.
Common sense: when someone visits a website, one party is passive ("come look at me!") and the other is taking voluntary action. Yes, you can get unwittingly linked to a site but nothing forces you to stay there and read or watch. Nobody is shoving it in your face. YOU are going THERE, voluntarily. Making the other end responsible for your actions, when they can neither know your laws or control your actions, is just plain ridiculous.
How are you currently paying for Brazilian internet connections?
I'm not. U.S. Corporations laid the cables and built the infrastructure. The Brazilian government leases them.
I am NOT saying "Oh... all this surveillance is fine." I am simply saying: okay. They don't like it, they can lay their own trans-oceanic cables and build their own infrastructure. No problem here.
And I don't even mind them complaining. They probably have reason to complain. But continuing to complain won't get much done. Laying their own cables might.
No. You might need a citation, but I don't need to deliver it.
I stated a truth: the statistics that I read said what I claimed they said. Take that for as much or as little evidence as you like. But this is NOT Wikipedia, and this is NOT a scientific forum of debate. You might need a citation, but I am not obligated to spend an hour finding it for you.
So if you really NEED that citation, I suggest you go look it the fuck up.
The law on "long arm jurisdiction" is a real treat for people who like Fizzbin.
Except on Tuesday.
:)