There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.
Perhaps I was not clear. The irony in the poster modded as a troll, and my comment modded as off topic is a complete denial of AGW, a complete denial of people who live at essentially sea level now being chased out due to rising sea levels.
Perhaps the first time a story about AGW has a reply about AGW, and is apparently off topic to mention AGW in a story about AGW
Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?
I fear I've read the article, so I'd better turn in my slashdot card. But here goes. And nothing in particular about your post - it was just a handy place for me to chime in.
As they note the first "relocator" was a Mr Moody - hey, wasn't on a lot of Lucille Ball TV shows? But I digress.
So why would a lot of Marshall Islanders want to leave their tropical paradise? Turns out there were a lot of problems where they lived - And here's why in 1979 it all started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We done went and made their home uninhabitable. We relocated them to other islands, but there wasn't enough resources for them to sustain life. Then we tried relocating them back to Bikini Island, but it turned out that while there were resources there, the food they grew was radioactive.
So now we can get an understanding of why and when. And in 1979, it wasn't AGW that spurred the initial migration, it was radioactivity - we'd pretty much rendered their original home uninhabitable.
Today? On Islands that are around 10 feet or less in altitude above sea level, it doesn't take a 10 foot rise to make them uninhabitable, just a combination of tides and storms happening at the right time. You might have some pretty palm trees most of the time, but the people who lived there have all drowned.
So despite Slashdotters getting their entire info from a summary and filling in the details with their preconceptions and opinions, the story is:
In the 1940's the US went on an explodey rampage, and really bitched up the Marshall Islander's home.
They relocated them. Didn't work out. Unsustainable
So in the late 70's the relocation started. Then it was getting out of a mess we created. Now it very well can be a combination of a marginal location that is become vulnerable.
I'm going to get a rash of tl;dr's no doubt. But there's the story.
I was hoping for civilized discussion in this forum. Obviously, even that is too much to ask.
You are displaying exactly that you want no other viewpoint but your own. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you into some sort of animal, not civilized, in comparison to you.
Because no matter what side you are on There is not one thing civulized about the middle east conflict. It is barbarism at it's zenith.
Regardless, saying "both sides are to blame" is just a generic dismissal.
The Israelis and the Palestinians are in a classic co-dependency role. Generic or not, it is an acceptable explanation for the conflict.
If you do not want to conduct this discussion, by all means stay out of it.
Shachar
By all means, no. I tell you something you do not want to hear, so I am somehow uncivilized, and you drop back to this weird passive aggressive aggreived mode, where you won't accept any viewpoint but your own. most unbecoming indeed, Sun, and not fooling anyone.
Despite a transparently arrogant air of civility while you play this game -you Sun - are a perfect example of how the middle east co-dependency syndrome works. I don't play that game. I've always gotten along with my neighbors.
You don't want to hear that, probably because the truth often is not in line with your history or what you have been taught.
Just curious - which "side" am I on in this conflict?
I apologise for mistaking you for someone interested in a civilized discussion. Will not happen again.
Shachar
Grow up.
There is no "civilized discussion" in this matter.
Simple observation shows that there is no peace in the area because neither side wants peace. This is mere continuation of some ancient family dysfunction among people with violent predispositions.
Given the length of time it has gone on, it shows that both sides somehow enjoy the conflict.
And neither take any politically biased matters into consideration, only simple observation.
Each side uses the other's latest atrocity as justification for it's own and next atrocity.
When in fact, it is just a dysfunctional family - genetically as well as mental outlook - that in some perverse way, enjoys their eternal fight. This bitchfight will never end, because they don't want it to end.
And to think that we have allowed ourselves to get drawn into the family feud by people who have a different motive - greasing the skids for their own fairy tale armageddon.
Queen Isabella was the government of Spain. You think she earned that money?
Who cares what you call it? The question is what she did and why she did it. And the fact is that she didn't act anything like NASA or Congress, she didn't take any extraordinary risks, and she wasn't even essential to the voyage. So, deGrasse-Tyson's analogy is simply wrong.
So did Kennedy or congress take any extraordinary risks in authorizing the Apollo program?
She was the queen, authorized by Spain and more importantly, the Catholic church, which was critical, and about as much a definition of Government as you can get.
Your argument is devolving into "I am right, because I'm me".
The question is why. Unless our survival is threatened there is no impetus for us to go out there.
That could be used as an excuse for not developing any technology at all.
As well, there is soon going to be a very good reason to get into earth orbit.
Garbage collection.
As infinite as space appears to be, there is limited real estate available. Geosynchronous orbits can't be just any place, and lower orbits are important, and chosen for specific purposes. And since we seem to be getting into a certifiably insane game of space wars, there is soon going to be a nasty and full area of earth orbit that will be off limits for a long long time.
I'm expecting one of the first serious missions of commercial space travel as being a picking up the trash job, and pulling dead satellites out of orbit. At some point you can't just de-orbit or push something into a higher orbit. And if we decide to send a lot of explodey things into orbit, and use them, they might be the first step of allowing humans access to space again. And some of those devices are important to survival.
But on topic. I lost enthusiasm to degrassey when one Christmas he debased Christians, the following Muslim holiday he kept his mouth shut. It cannot be, just one religion is bad.
You need to google Neil DeGrass Tyson on muslims or islam.
If space cannot be opened up to individuals then it will never be open at all. During the age of Columbus, any schmuck with a ship could go out exploring.
I get your technology point, but it really wasn't all that different a situation.
Columbus was funded by these folk, Isabella and Ferdinand. The 1400's version of Government funding.
Building the ships, outfitting them and manning them, as well as upkeep, was not inexpensive. Given the technology of the time, it was more similar to the early space programs than dissimilar.
I don't think so. A small increase in creativity for a short period of time maybe. Though quite possibly it makes you *think* you're being more productive, just like people who take concaine *think* they're being incredibly interesting when they chat, whereas usually the complete opposite is the case.
Same with ethanol. Nothing is more annoying than walking into a party where people have been drinking. It usually takes me a couple drinks before they stop being asshats.
On the other hand I would want to talk to Archimedes, his work on the catapults is of great interest to me, I would like to use one of his inventions to catapult this site.
See - you played along. Got you to think, and you made an interesting and funny choice.
...who isn't vegan. The worst Thanksgiving I ever had was the one who had the one who condemned the eating of flesh in attendance. Surely there are places these people can go during the holidays!
I've done lunch with people who interrogate the waitstaff, some times the managers, scowl at other customers - and me - if we make the sin of ordering anything they decide is bad. THey seemed to have trouble gettin people to go to lunch with them more than once.
I come from an old school family where eating with others is an expression of favor, and arguing is highly discouraged. Vegetarians can usually manage, but by the time a person gets to veganism, there is a excellent chance that they believe they have to make a show of everything, and are very difficult to have a pleasant meal with.
Should I tell you what your reply is going to be before you make it? Right - don't use default passwords. And hopefully the company won't have a support backdoor built in.
Most regular people find passwords a pain in the backside. As well, they aren't always up on security. An inescapable fact, 20 years on. It hardly even qualifies as hacking.
A thermostat is a few switches (heat/cool/fan) and a thermometer. Are you proposing redesigning / replacing home furnaces when simply using a dumb or unconnected thermostat would work just as well?
IoT gurus want everything connected to the internet. Somehow it makes things better. I'll bet that you will be able to send an image of yourself to all your friend's toasters. The basic infrastructure is there, now we will finally be happy when we can do this.....
I'm waiting for it to take a toast selfie so I don't have tobe so damned inconvenienced by taking my own meal instagrams I mean what the hell did the Pilgrims do? It's a sin. I mean how did everyone know what they were eating? I mean - I mean.
No. My thermostat has no "off" switch, and a minimum temperature setting that is high enough not to let the pipes freeze. The electronic TRVs likewise have a safeguard against freezing.
Now that is fascinating, because that means they know what the outside temperatures are. Something tells me you live an a place that doesn't get below freezing often.
But these things do need an on off switch, a fan and a switchover to AC as needed.
Sure, it's still electronics, and someone could have messed with the firmware, or even exploit a weakness in the thermostat by sending weird packets over the Z-Wave network (a wireless network used for home automation) to make it turn the heating off completely.
Wait - I thought you told me this can't happen.
That's far, far less likely to happen than the heater itself breaking down. And because I can monitor things remotely, it is extremely unlikely to happen without me noticing the problem.
Actually, I'm not so certain about those odds. I do also suspect that the system will have to be safety critical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So buy a connected fridge from a reputable vendor whom you can trust to at least understand the important issues and risks of having an appliance connected to the LAN or Internet. Don't buy a connected fridge at all if you're too worried about this, or feel you can't trust any manufacturer.
Or if we get to the point of having them on everything, like OnStar in GM vehicles, make certain you disable them. And no, not having a subscription does not mean they don't pay attention.
It is fine to be cautious, just don't call anyone who disagrees an idiot, or claim that the introduction of IoT-capable appliances is somehow violating your rights. That's the vibe I am getting from a lot of opponents to HA. The IoT is not evil for the reasons you state; "IoT doesn't steal data, peope do".
Your own vibe is colored a bit by your preconceptions. It's not fearmongering for me to say I won't buy a GM car because I don't like OnStar. Just noting that there are certain aspsect that people might not be thinking about, like their vehicle disabling feature, or cab monitoring feature.
There are implications that a lot of people don't think about. Remember the school in Pennsylvania that was using the school issued laptop cameras to spy on the students? That kind of went away, but I'll bet they got some interesting images of naked students who happened to be underaged. I've always wondered about what Comcast is getting into with their whole house surveillance security systems. They always show mom at work, siling and happy because her teenaged kids are safe at home. I'll bet there are some notsafe for the public images those cameras capture.
And if mom can monitor the kids, from work, or control the thermostats or lights or security system, then its not fearmongering to note that other people can, and naive to assume that they won't try.
Perhaps in the pursuit of pecuniary renumeration, you don't care. And in many respects I don't care either, as long as I am not forced to buy this stuff.
Now, go get a motherboard from a different vendor, and install that. Oh, you can't, there are no other vendors. LOL derrrrrr
Well, yeah - you are 100 percent correct. If I want an apple computer, I certainly do need an Apple mobo. Forgive me - bacause that was so obvious I missed it.
Slashdot Mirror
...meet AGW refugees.
"0 Troll"
There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.
Perhaps I was not clear. The irony in the poster modded as a troll, and my comment modded as off topic is a complete denial of AGW, a complete denial of people who live at essentially sea level now being chased out due to rising sea levels.
Perhaps the first time a story about AGW has a reply about AGW, and is apparently off topic to mention AGW in a story about AGW
Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?
I fear I've read the article, so I'd better turn in my slashdot card. But here goes. And nothing in particular about your post - it was just a handy place for me to chime in.
As they note the first "relocator" was a Mr Moody - hey, wasn't on a lot of Lucille Ball TV shows? But I digress.
So why would a lot of Marshall Islanders want to leave their tropical paradise? Turns out there were a lot of problems where they lived - And here's why in 1979 it all started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We done went and made their home uninhabitable. We relocated them to other islands, but there wasn't enough resources for them to sustain life. Then we tried relocating them back to Bikini Island, but it turned out that while there were resources there, the food they grew was radioactive.
So now we can get an understanding of why and when. And in 1979, it wasn't AGW that spurred the initial migration, it was radioactivity - we'd pretty much rendered their original home uninhabitable.
Today? On Islands that are around 10 feet or less in altitude above sea level, it doesn't take a 10 foot rise to make them uninhabitable, just a combination of tides and storms happening at the right time. You might have some pretty palm trees most of the time, but the people who lived there have all drowned.
So despite Slashdotters getting their entire info from a summary and filling in the details with their preconceptions and opinions, the story is: In the 1940's the US went on an explodey rampage, and really bitched up the Marshall Islander's home.
They relocated them. Didn't work out. Unsustainable
They brought them back. Didn't work out. Radioactive food. We even tried capping the nasty stuff http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
So in the late 70's the relocation started. Then it was getting out of a mess we created. Now it very well can be a combination of a marginal location that is become vulnerable.
I'm going to get a rash of tl;dr's no doubt. But there's the story.
...meet AGW refugees.
"0 Troll"
There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.
The important question is why the data was stored on VTech's servers in the first place.
THIS ^^^^^^^^ THIS
This corporate culture of "store everything" needs to go away.
But. But! BUT! Think of the children!!!
oh......wait....
This is not passive aggressive. This is me stating my point of view. I'm sorry you somehow find it offensive.
Your passive aggressiveness is showing again. That really is inadequate as a discussion technique.
Good day Sun.
I was hoping for civilized discussion in this forum. Obviously, even that is too much to ask.
You are displaying exactly that you want no other viewpoint but your own. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you into some sort of animal, not civilized, in comparison to you.
Because no matter what side you are on There is not one thing civulized about the middle east conflict. It is barbarism at it's zenith.
Regardless, saying "both sides are to blame" is just a generic dismissal.
The Israelis and the Palestinians are in a classic co-dependency role. Generic or not, it is an acceptable explanation for the conflict.
If you do not want to conduct this discussion, by all means stay out of it.
Shachar
By all means, no. I tell you something you do not want to hear, so I am somehow uncivilized, and you drop back to this weird passive aggressive aggreived mode, where you won't accept any viewpoint but your own. most unbecoming indeed, Sun, and not fooling anyone.
Despite a transparently arrogant air of civility while you play this game -you Sun - are a perfect example of how the middle east co-dependency syndrome works. I don't play that game. I've always gotten along with my neighbors.
You don't want to hear that, probably because the truth often is not in line with your history or what you have been taught.
Just curious - which "side" am I on in this conflict?
I apologise for mistaking you for someone interested in a civilized discussion. Will not happen again.
Shachar
Grow up.
There is no "civilized discussion" in this matter.
Simple observation shows that there is no peace in the area because neither side wants peace. This is mere continuation of some ancient family dysfunction among people with violent predispositions.
Given the length of time it has gone on, it shows that both sides somehow enjoy the conflict.
And neither take any politically biased matters into consideration, only simple observation.
Why would someone kill your wife and children?
Holy land troll.
Each side uses the other's latest atrocity as justification for it's own and next atrocity.
When in fact, it is just a dysfunctional family - genetically as well as mental outlook - that in some perverse way, enjoys their eternal fight. This bitchfight will never end, because they don't want it to end.
And to think that we have allowed ourselves to get drawn into the family feud by people who have a different motive - greasing the skids for their own fairy tale armageddon.
I have no respect for anyone who would look their brother in the eye and see an animal when what they really see is a mirror.
This stopped me in my tracks. The highlight of a profound post with many highlights to choose from. Bravo!
He's admitting to his own judgment becoming similarly impaired, at which point the (other) intoxicated people seem less annoying.
Bingo!
King Ferdinand was a beta cuck. Isabella cheated on him with five men.
She was a very generous woman.
Who cares what you call it? The question is what she did and why she did it. And the fact is that she didn't act anything like NASA or Congress, she didn't take any extraordinary risks, and she wasn't even essential to the voyage. So, deGrasse-Tyson's analogy is simply wrong.
So did Kennedy or congress take any extraordinary risks in authorizing the Apollo program?
She was the queen, authorized by Spain and more importantly, the Catholic church, which was critical, and about as much a definition of Government as you can get.
Your argument is devolving into "I am right, because I'm me".
The question is why. Unless our survival is threatened there is no impetus for us to go out there.
That could be used as an excuse for not developing any technology at all.
As well, there is soon going to be a very good reason to get into earth orbit.
Garbage collection.
As infinite as space appears to be, there is limited real estate available. Geosynchronous orbits can't be just any place, and lower orbits are important, and chosen for specific purposes. And since we seem to be getting into a certifiably insane game of space wars, there is soon going to be a nasty and full area of earth orbit that will be off limits for a long long time.
I'm expecting one of the first serious missions of commercial space travel as being a picking up the trash job, and pulling dead satellites out of orbit. At some point you can't just de-orbit or push something into a higher orbit. And if we decide to send a lot of explodey things into orbit, and use them, they might be the first step of allowing humans access to space again. And some of those devices are important to survival.
But on topic. I lost enthusiasm to degrassey when one Christmas he debased Christians, the following Muslim holiday he kept his mouth shut. It cannot be, just one religion is bad.
You need to google Neil DeGrass Tyson on muslims or islam.
If space cannot be opened up to individuals then it will never be open at all. During the age of Columbus, any schmuck with a ship could go out exploring.
I get your technology point, but it really wasn't all that different a situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Columbus was funded by these folk, Isabella and Ferdinand. The 1400's version of Government funding.
Building the ships, outfitting them and manning them, as well as upkeep, was not inexpensive. Given the technology of the time, it was more similar to the early space programs than dissimilar.
I don't think so. A small increase in creativity for a short period of time maybe. Though quite possibly it makes you *think* you're being more productive, just like people who take concaine *think* they're being incredibly interesting when they chat, whereas usually the complete opposite is the case.
Same with ethanol. Nothing is more annoying than walking into a party where people have been drinking. It usually takes me a couple drinks before they stop being asshats.
How we got the Internet of Things.
Seriously, this is a story?
On the other hand I would want to talk to Archimedes, his work on the catapults is of great interest to me, I would like to use one of his inventions to catapult this site.
See - you played along. Got you to think, and you made an interesting and funny choice.
I'd choose Ben Franklin myself.
...who isn't vegan. The worst Thanksgiving I ever had was the one who had the one who condemned the eating of flesh in attendance. Surely there are places these people can go during the holidays!
I've done lunch with people who interrogate the waitstaff, some times the managers, scowl at other customers - and me - if we make the sin of ordering anything they decide is bad. THey seemed to have trouble gettin people to go to lunch with them more than once.
I come from an old school family where eating with others is an expression of favor, and arguing is highly discouraged. Vegetarians can usually manage, but by the time a person gets to veganism, there is a excellent chance that they believe they have to make a show of everything, and are very difficult to have a pleasant meal with.
Apparently, they are ironically named as well.
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
Should I tell you what your reply is going to be before you make it? Right - don't use default passwords. And hopefully the company won't have a support backdoor built in.
Most regular people find passwords a pain in the backside. As well, they aren't always up on security. An inescapable fact, 20 years on. It hardly even qualifies as hacking.
A thermostat is a few switches (heat/cool/fan) and a thermometer. Are you proposing redesigning / replacing home furnaces when simply using a dumb or unconnected thermostat would work just as well?
IoT gurus want everything connected to the internet. Somehow it makes things better. I'll bet that you will be able to send an image of yourself to all your friend's toasters. The basic infrastructure is there, now we will finally be happy when we can do this..... I'm waiting for it to take a toast selfie so I don't have tobe so damned inconvenienced by taking my own meal instagrams I mean what the hell did the Pilgrims do? It's a sin. I mean how did everyone know what they were eating? I mean - I mean.
No. My thermostat has no "off" switch, and a minimum temperature setting that is high enough not to let the pipes freeze. The electronic TRVs likewise have a safeguard against freezing. Now that is fascinating, because that means they know what the outside temperatures are. Something tells me you live an a place that doesn't get below freezing often. But these things do need an on off switch, a fan and a switchover to AC as needed.
Sure, it's still electronics, and someone could have messed with the firmware, or even exploit a weakness in the thermostat by sending weird packets over the Z-Wave network (a wireless network used for home automation) to make it turn the heating off completely.
Wait - I thought you told me this can't happen.
That's far, far less likely to happen than the heater itself breaking down. And because I can monitor things remotely, it is extremely unlikely to happen without me noticing the problem.
Actually, I'm not so certain about those odds. I do also suspect that the system will have to be safety critical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So buy a connected fridge from a reputable vendor whom you can trust to at least understand the important issues and risks of having an appliance connected to the LAN or Internet. Don't buy a connected fridge at all if you're too worried about this, or feel you can't trust any manufacturer.
Or if we get to the point of having them on everything, like OnStar in GM vehicles, make certain you disable them. And no, not having a subscription does not mean they don't pay attention.
It is fine to be cautious, just don't call anyone who disagrees an idiot, or claim that the introduction of IoT-capable appliances is somehow violating your rights. That's the vibe I am getting from a lot of opponents to HA. The IoT is not evil for the reasons you state; "IoT doesn't steal data, peope do".
Your own vibe is colored a bit by your preconceptions. It's not fearmongering for me to say I won't buy a GM car because I don't like OnStar. Just noting that there are certain aspsect that people might not be thinking about, like their vehicle disabling feature, or cab monitoring feature.
There are implications that a lot of people don't think about. Remember the school in Pennsylvania that was using the school issued laptop cameras to spy on the students? That kind of went away, but I'll bet they got some interesting images of naked students who happened to be underaged. I've always wondered about what Comcast is getting into with their whole house surveillance security systems. They always show mom at work, siling and happy because her teenaged kids are safe at home. I'll bet there are some notsafe for the public images those cameras capture.
And if mom can monitor the kids, from work, or control the thermostats or lights or security system, then its not fearmongering to note that other people can, and naive to assume that they won't try.
Perhaps in the pursuit of pecuniary renumeration, you don't care. And in many respects I don't care either, as long as I am not forced to buy this stuff.
Now, go get a motherboard from a different vendor, and install that. Oh, you can't, there are no other vendors. LOL derrrrrr
Well, yeah - you are 100 percent correct. If I want an apple computer, I certainly do need an Apple mobo. Forgive me - bacause that was so obvious I missed it.
Because it's one metric shitload easier to use.
How much is that in imperial units?
1 each Fuckton.