started putting everything past the abstract behind a paywall
You have put these in the past tense. Do you have evidence that more than a miniscule percentage of the internet is behind a paywall ?
Or is it the past tense of a hypothetical world ? You have provided timeline to the other events (2010s and 2002) but for the appearance of paywall I don't see any.
The blood-sample approach would be more secure than the password
No it won't be until lots of additional safeguards that you haven't put in your blood sample story. Yours is a fallacy very popular among people who don't really understand authentication. E.g. whole of the country of India.
1. The sample could be intercepted on its way to the lab. VS passwords are encrypted on its way, as well as hashed in storage.
2. The lab could clone / keep a small part of blood sample. VS sending passwords in plain text to a third party authenticator service is insecure.
3. A mosquito that sucks the blood of the user can be captured to get into a system. If blood spills due to an accident, attack, disease, menstruation etc. it can be used likewise. Yet it doesn't protect against the torture attack that works so reliably against the password regime. VS Passwords don't spill out of people's bodies due to routine reasons. Yet passwords are slightly safer against the torture attack than blood sample regime.
Yes security is a trade-off. But for most reasonable security systems - it is possible to decrease security while at the same time also decreasing usability. Your blood sample example illustrates it nicely.
Whatever a school calls it, doesn't matter. That is why I gave multiple names, and studying anything of the sort would help you understand this concept. Monopoly and dominance though, are a large superset of this particular strategy of achieving monopoly and dominance. Other strategies include patent warfare, regulatory capture, gangsters, sabotage, being awesome , low profit margin, mind control, etc.
The AC we are talking about did mention that the oil industry lower the prices and then raise them periodically. They also mentioned this is to shut down any alternatives that might be emerging - maybe this point was not made very well. But what do you expect from a/. post : your own conflated "monopoly" with a specific kind of approach to achieving monopoly.
The worst made point in the AC post was : I only have a hunch that it was being made at all : that in this industry, an alternative to oil could be waiting around the corner. The huge infrastructure in most of the world of a distribution network, as well as an immense know-how about obtaining and refining oil : is only a legacy of a past where there was no alternative. Now there could be, and once an alternative replaces oil in one of the segments e.g. gasoline cars : demand for oil reduces for reducing oil output.
This could be the death knell for the oil industry : reducing price reduces further drilling, exploration, know-how development in next generation, which feeds into the cycle of destruction of the oil industry. Some niches might still remain e.g. chemicals : but the profits the oil industry is used to could enormously diminish.
But even if this point were not being made, your selective reading of the AC's post doesn't indicate a very good understanding of the business world : especially for one with "MBA" in username.
He / she is a diversity hire. To fire him / her and appoint a more efficient one would go against the whole existence of this particular office in the first place.
It is possible that you don't understand future tense very well. So I reminded you about it.
There are indeed no guarantees of the future.
Your earlier posts do not indicate that you understand this very well. The topic is about giving powers to a government that
1. are not strictly necessary 2. are difficult to revoke 3. have never been tested in this country about future impact 4. have never been tested anywhere else about future impact
Here, by not even talking about future impact when the subject is broached betrays your lack of understanding of this subject. You indeed memorized / Googled the maxim "There are indeed no guarantees of the future"; how about showing an understanding of it in your posts ?
The reminder of "Guarantee" was for broaching the subject of probabilities in absence of guarantees, and things that affect it. In one country or another.
because here it isn't the government that was the major oppressive force on people
It is true that it was so, and I have no problem believing that Nordic governments today are among the best in the world. However :
1. Past experience gives no guarantee about future
2. Most people have never run into a road accident close to their home. When they return close to home after long drives, they start "feeling" safe around their home. Which is a very false feeling - as most road accidents happen around the homes of people involved in the accident.
3. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cashless gives an incredible power to governments - the power to almost deny the right to exist. There is no history of anyone in the history having such a power - so any conclusions about how corrupt this power will make the Nordic governments are premature.
However, in this instance, the Sweden government trying to ameliorate cashlessness problems deserves praise.
Ok, break your country's power grid into Geographically Norway sized countries' grids , and ensure all of them have the power reliability that of Norway. Problem solved.
Learn induction - it may or may not work for fixing your electric power grids but mathematically very powerful.
Look at Obi-Wan and Qai-Gon's attitude towards slavery
They are on an EXTREMELY important mission, completely oblivious to slavery on a particular planet. It concerns issues much bigger than Tattooine, landing on which was not in their original plan. Already stormtroopers are looking for R2D2 - they are already doing everything to avoid drawing attention. And yet they got the weird Sith fellow by the time they were leaving.
So no, their attitude towards slavery was completely irrelevant.
The latter arguably resulted in Anakin turning to the dark side and the deaths of billions.
Anakin turning to the dark side was highly idiotic - even for a fantasy movie. One moment he is complaining to the Jedi order that a guy is a Sith. When that same Sith kills almost the whole of the Jedi council, suddenly that Sith becomes "master".
Except for the hypothesis that Anakin was fundamentally extremely stupid, the part makes no sense whatsoever. It is not explained by slavery, nor by his family's suffering, nor by his episodic anger.
Yeah - even the difference of 4 seconds vs 2 seconds on different browsers would more likely mean someone is mining bitcoins on your browser: and failing to do so in the faster browser.
In the non-malware case the difference is less than 10% of loading time.
So kids are qualified to select which scripts are safe to run ?
Anyway, you went wrong in 2 places : 1. Security updates, in a multi layered security model, are not as urgent so as to risk untested changes on "kids". Noscript was part of that multi layered security model : if kept configured properly.
BTW multi layered is the only color security comes in.
2. It was not a " risk ", but a certainty if the "administrator" knew about documented policy of the software they are "administrating".
Software updating themselves is a fundamental security vulnerability anyway. No software should have a write access on their own executable / libraries.
Chrome also updates without user consent : it is as likely to break your flow due to unscheduled updates, as any other self-updating software. If not due to plugins, then due to some other feature.
First you are confused about what voting with wallets means. Then you are confused whether you are talking about only approaches opposed to voting with wallets. In this latest instance, you are confused about whether the approach I take is being discussed at all.
Slashdot Mirror
started putting everything past the abstract behind a paywall
You have put these in the past tense. Do you have evidence that more than a miniscule percentage of the internet is behind a paywall ?
Or is it the past tense of a hypothetical world ? You have provided timeline to the other events (2010s and 2002) but for the appearance of paywall I don't see any.
The blood-sample approach would be more secure than the password
No it won't be until lots of additional safeguards that you haven't put in your blood sample story. Yours is a fallacy very popular among people who don't really understand authentication. E.g. whole of the country of India.
1. The sample could be intercepted on its way to the lab. VS passwords are encrypted on its way, as well as hashed in storage.
2. The lab could clone / keep a small part of blood sample. VS sending passwords in plain text to a third party authenticator service is insecure.
3. A mosquito that sucks the blood of the user can be captured to get into a system. If blood spills due to an accident, attack, disease, menstruation etc. it can be used likewise. Yet it doesn't protect against the torture attack that works so reliably against the password regime. VS Passwords don't spill out of people's bodies due to routine reasons. Yet passwords are slightly safer against the torture attack than blood sample regime.
Yes security is a trade-off. But for most reasonable security systems - it is possible to decrease security while at the same time also decreasing usability. Your blood sample example illustrates it nicely.
Whatever a school calls it, doesn't matter. That is why I gave multiple names, and studying anything of the sort would help you understand this concept. Monopoly and dominance though, are a large superset of this particular strategy of achieving monopoly and dominance. Other strategies include patent warfare, regulatory capture, gangsters, sabotage, being awesome , low profit margin, mind control, etc.
The AC we are talking about did mention that the oil industry lower the prices and then raise them periodically. They also mentioned this is to shut down any alternatives that might be emerging - maybe this point was not made very well. But what do you expect from a /. post : your own conflated "monopoly" with a specific kind of approach to achieving monopoly.
The worst made point in the AC post was : I only have a hunch that it was being made at all : that in this industry, an alternative to oil could be waiting around the corner. The huge infrastructure in most of the world of a distribution network, as well as an immense know-how about obtaining and refining oil : is only a legacy of a past where there was no alternative. Now there could be, and once an alternative replaces oil in one of the segments e.g. gasoline cars : demand for oil reduces for reducing oil output.
This could be the death knell for the oil industry : reducing price reduces further drilling, exploration, know-how development in next generation, which feeds into the cycle of destruction of the oil industry. Some niches might still remain e.g. chemicals : but the profits the oil industry is used to could enormously diminish.
But even if this point were not being made, your selective reading of the AC's post doesn't indicate a very good understanding of the business world : especially for one with "MBA" in username.
Everything else is fine , but
Uber's pay is calculated by a provably fair algorithm
Do you have the source code for Uber's algorithm ? Or what black-box-testing can be performed on Uber to "prove" such things ?
Obviously their existing CDO isn't doing her job
He / she is a diversity hire. To fire him / her and appoint a more efficient one would go against the whole existence of this particular office in the first place.
kernel "improvements" (at least they usually keep the old, reliable and well-tested stuff around), the morons that these days maintain Emacs
Just curious - what are the bad "improvements" in kernel, and moronic developments in Emacs ?
See : https://notmuchmail.org/
It can have various types of interfaces.
Don't they teach the Standard Oil strategy in MBA any more ? Predatory pricing ? Bible proverbs ?
Then why don't you address the original point on which I replied ?
If you understood the point, you could have made a constructive point instead of name calling.
All the doubts my post was raising were about the future. I agreed about the present anyway, and quite explicitly.
Your reply was only about the present.
It is possible that you don't understand future tense very well. So I reminded you about it.
There are indeed no guarantees of the future.
Your earlier posts do not indicate that you understand this very well. The topic is about giving powers to a government that
1. are not strictly necessary
2. are difficult to revoke
3. have never been tested in this country about future impact
4. have never been tested anywhere else about future impact
Here, by not even talking about future impact when the subject is broached betrays your lack of understanding of this subject. You indeed memorized / Googled the maxim "There are indeed no guarantees of the future"; how about showing an understanding of it in your posts ?
The reminder of "Guarantee" was for broaching the subject of probabilities in absence of guarantees, and things that affect it. In one country or another.
Future. Guarantee.
because here it isn't the government that was the major oppressive force on people
It is true that it was so, and I have no problem believing that Nordic governments today are among the best in the world. However :
1. Past experience gives no guarantee about future
2. Most people have never run into a road accident close to their home. When they return close to home after long drives, they start "feeling" safe around their home. Which is a very false feeling - as most road accidents happen around the homes of people involved in the accident.
3. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cashless gives an incredible power to governments - the power to almost deny the right to exist. There is no history of anyone in the history having such a power - so any conclusions about how corrupt this power will make the Nordic governments are premature.
However, in this instance, the Sweden government trying to ameliorate cashlessness problems deserves praise.
Ok, break your country's power grid into Geographically Norway sized countries' grids , and ensure all of them have the power reliability that of Norway. Problem solved.
Learn induction - it may or may not work for fixing your electric power grids but mathematically very powerful.
Why do you think it is false ?
Look at Obi-Wan and Qai-Gon's attitude towards slavery
They are on an EXTREMELY important mission, completely oblivious to slavery on a particular planet. It concerns issues much bigger than Tattooine, landing on which was not in their original plan. Already stormtroopers are looking for R2D2 - they are already doing everything to avoid drawing attention. And yet they got the weird Sith fellow by the time they were leaving.
So no, their attitude towards slavery was completely irrelevant.
The latter arguably resulted in Anakin turning to the dark side and the deaths of billions.
Anakin turning to the dark side was highly idiotic - even for a fantasy movie. One moment he is complaining to the Jedi order that a guy is a Sith. When that same Sith kills almost the whole of the Jedi council, suddenly that Sith becomes "master".
Except for the hypothesis that Anakin was fundamentally extremely stupid, the part makes no sense whatsoever. It is not explained by slavery, nor by his family's suffering, nor by his episodic anger.
And perfect "free market" exists ?
What is the third central assumption ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
... free market ... free market's
Aren't you forgetting that a "free market" is predicated on a symmetry of information between buyer and seller ?
Yeah - even the difference of 4 seconds vs 2 seconds on different browsers would more likely mean someone is mining bitcoins on your browser: and failing to do so in the faster browser.
In the non-malware case the difference is less than 10% of loading time.
So kids are qualified to select which scripts are safe to run ?
Anyway, you went wrong in 2 places :
1. Security updates, in a multi layered security model, are not as urgent so as to risk untested changes on "kids". Noscript was part of that multi layered security model : if kept configured properly.
BTW multi layered is the only color security comes in.
2. It was not a " risk ", but a certainty if the "administrator" knew about documented policy of the software they are "administrating".
Software updating themselves is a fundamental security vulnerability anyway. No software should have a write access on their own executable / libraries.
Chrome also updates without user consent : it is as likely to break your flow due to unscheduled updates, as any other self-updating software. If not due to plugins, then due to some other feature.
First you are confused about what voting with wallets means. Then you are confused whether you are talking about only approaches opposed to voting with wallets. In this latest instance, you are confused about whether the approach I take is being discussed at all.
So you had to change the topic to avoid admitting your idiocy ?