You're wasting your breath. These pricks know the crap that will occur for the next four years will be ugly, and they'll get blamed for it, and are preparing themselves to dial up their own persecution complex to 11 as a way of putting their fingers in their ears and saying "nahnahnahnahnah I can't hear you".
Capitalism is under the mis-impression that it is such a fair an benevolent system that things are only "good" to the extent that they can be monetized, even in the face of clear evidence that some of the most essential activity/technology keeping our society afloat are done for no pay by self-sacrificing volunteers. Those who wield large amounts of capital are especially inclined towards this mode of thought, because they look around and say hey money is power, and I have money, so why can't I get people to do what I want?
That said, weaving conspiracy theories on anyone's page from high school who doesn't have the heart to unfriend you is not productive in either sense, and we do have way too many self-appointed keyboard warriors out there using social media as a prosthesis for actual social activism.
Mostly the panels go on the roof of the house. Which kinda requires storage if your car isn't at your house during daylight hours.
I did the math on this once... if while parked, car roof panels folded out over the windshield (doubling as a blind) and the front hood, and the car was parked faced into the sun then there'd be enough collected to make a significant contribution to a commute, but if you wanted to do it entirely this way, you'd best have a very short commute. That's about the best case scenario. Users are claiming in the area of 0.3kWh per mile. 8 hour workday * watts/m^2 * total *incidental* area of panels... but really if you have charging stations at work it's a matter of how much they charge per KWh and whether the panels can shave enough off your bill over time to make up for the cost added to the car.
Another, though costly, solution to this is to dense up your APs and turn the 2.5 radios down so low that even Apples choose the 5GHz. Not that I'm suggesting it for your setup, but it's what we have to do on enterprise these days.
Yeah but Apple is the worst, or at least most prevalent, offender in this area. If Apple ends up having to fix their crap to deal with the fact that most enterprise networks -- and without their APs/advice, more home networks in the future, run a single SSID across bands, out of necessity for clean roaming, we all win.
Exactly this. Yay! Apple will now have to actually make its devices play nice with inter-vendor standards instead of doing crazy shit like telling you to blank an entire channel out of your spectrum so their AppleTV can be autodiscovered or telling you to put different SSID names on different bands.
In the minds of the vendors, it is "necessary" because a) their software only barely works at ship-time and is still under active development for the first few years of product support, so the more of it that is server side, the better and b) their business model involves selling the below actual cost and making up the difference by selling to big-data consumers.
The dime-a-dozen solutions are not up to this task. It would require a subscription to an actively maintained (by the manufacturer or a third party security shop) set of behavioral profiles and updates for when the cloud/app vendors switch things around unannounced. What we're talking about here is the ability to differentiate between typical behavior and aberrant behavior. Such exists in the professional NGFW space, mostly. Note that IoT devices generally do not take direct inbound connections through uPnP ports (there are advocates in the industry, but you know... herding cats), they establish persistent/polling outbound connections to cloud services. So you need to know what two-hundred cloud IP addresses each device should be allowed to connect to both now, and next Tuesday, and figure that out by sniffing the device's traffic, bot for the current firmware version, and future ones, and for products that do not exist yet.
A home product would be possible, but would need to be auto-updated frequently with policies made by a lot of paid professionals. A few of the NGFW vendors have started to size down towards the home-office market, e.g. the PA-200 series. Decidedly not open source, however. pfSense is not quite there yet feature-wise.
Now, if previous posters suggested. all IoT devices adhered to a standard to make this easier, it would not need as much support, but I'm not holding my breath for that... there are so many standards to choose from and its too easy to roll your own.
The mystery to me here is why people who were willing to overlook blatant racism and sexism somehow could not also see that Trump has all the characteristics that will make him even more corrupt than Clinton, including a track record of scamming people.
Situations like this is where rational people are supposed to weigh sources based on their overall reliability, compare them to other sources/information, and figure out the reliability of information by weight and logic, rather than throwing babies out with the bathwater.
Everyone wants a 100% trustworthy news source so they do not have to think for themselves. 99% won't do, apparently. The truly crazy part is where, after rejecting sources that are relatively reliable, they fall hook line and sinker for a bullshit post on their uncle's blog.
People who keep saying this played a major role in getting you-know-who elected.
This is a horrible mis-attribution of blame. The argument is that the thin-skinned should be held blameless for being thin-skinned, and we should blame the people who got them upset. No. The thin-skinned are adults. They don't act like it, and they should be held accountable for that.
Since the process of validating an identity is already something the CA industry is gearing up for, it would be easier to implement this through DANE with stapled EVC PKI certificates. However, as many have pointed out, anonymity itself should not be banned. Misrepresentation of some other person's identity should probably be, but not anonymity.
I my state you just state your name, and they already have your address in the roll. They mark the entry to indicate I have voted. So if someone tried to use my name, I'd get to the poll and find out they think I already voted. Or if they showed up after me, the poll workers would have to look into them. Further, if someone who had not voted wanted to know if their name had been used, they could pretty easily check into the matter. How often has that happened, to anyone? Almost never, because it would be stupid to try... especially since poll workers tend to be from the immediate community and just might know the person who you are trying to impersonate.
Then after voting, the same process happens with a different set of poll workers, who are seated at a distance to the first set, for redundancy.
Eligibility verification happens instead at registration time. and when town clerks clean old entries off the lists. This is when it should happen, to keep the polls running smoothly.
The two can coexist. DNS (through DANE PKI stapling) could allow you to tell which sites have been verified by a CA to belong to a real name, through an EVC, but not require all sites to have an EVC.
How to present this to users is the real question... browser and OS manufacturers would be tempted to put scary indicators up for non-verified identities. How to express to users that a site not vouched for by a real individual but there could be good reasons for such a site to exist, while at the same time encouraging users to pay attention to whether there is a real individual doing the vouching in situations where they should is perhaps tricky.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wasting your breath. These pricks know the crap that will occur for the next four years will be ugly, and they'll get blamed for it, and are preparing themselves to dial up their own persecution complex to 11 as a way of putting their fingers in their ears and saying "nahnahnahnahnah I can't hear you".
dark Democrat money wouldn't be pushing the fake news agenda
You forget to add "and the large number of people who are sick and tired of having to debunk uncle bob's emails to nana for her"
using the stage to push a political agenda
OMG what a travesty! The integrity of "the stage" will be forever tarnished!
Capitalism is under the mis-impression that it is such a fair an benevolent system that things are only "good" to the extent that they can be monetized, even in the face of clear evidence that some of the most essential activity/technology keeping our society afloat are done for no pay by self-sacrificing volunteers. Those who wield large amounts of capital are especially inclined towards this mode of thought, because they look around and say hey money is power, and I have money, so why can't I get people to do what I want?
That said, weaving conspiracy theories on anyone's page from high school who doesn't have the heart to unfriend you is not productive in either sense, and we do have way too many self-appointed keyboard warriors out there using social media as a prosthesis for actual social activism.
Mostly the panels go on the roof of the house. Which kinda requires storage if your car isn't at your house during daylight hours.
I did the math on this once... if while parked, car roof panels folded out over the windshield (doubling as a blind) and the front hood, and
the car was parked faced into the sun then there'd be enough collected to make a significant contribution to a commute, but if you wanted to
do it entirely this way, you'd best have a very short commute. That's about the best case scenario. Users are claiming in the area of
0.3kWh per mile. 8 hour workday * watts/m^2 * total *incidental* area of panels... but really if you have charging stations at work it's a matter
of how much they charge per KWh and whether the panels can shave enough off your bill over time to make up for the cost added to the car.
Another, though costly, solution to this is to dense up your APs and turn the 2.5 radios down so low that even Apples choose the 5GHz. Not that I'm suggesting it for your setup, but it's what we have to do on enterprise these days.
Yeah but Apple is the worst, or at least most prevalent, offender in this area. If Apple ends up having to fix their crap to deal with the fact that most enterprise networks -- and without their APs/advice, more home networks in the future, run a single SSID across bands, out of necessity for clean roaming, we all win.
You should be aware of the 4-SSID rule of thumb.
Exactly this. Yay! Apple will now have to actually make its devices play nice with inter-vendor standards instead of doing crazy shit like telling you to blank an entire channel out of your spectrum so their AppleTV can be autodiscovered or telling you to put different SSID names on different bands.
To some extent that might work, until the IoT vendor updates the firmware or cloud service to legitimately send more traffic than it normally used to.
In the minds of the vendors, it is "necessary" because a) their software only barely works at ship-time and is still under active development for the first few years of product support, so the more of it that is server side, the better and b) their business model involves selling the below actual cost and making up the difference by selling to big-data consumers.
The dime-a-dozen solutions are not up to this task. It would require a subscription to an actively maintained (by the manufacturer or a third party security shop) set of behavioral profiles and updates for when the cloud/app vendors switch things around unannounced. What we're talking about here is the ability to differentiate between typical behavior and aberrant behavior. Such exists in the professional NGFW space, mostly. Note that IoT devices generally do not take direct inbound connections through uPnP ports (there are advocates in the industry, but you know... herding cats), they establish persistent/polling outbound connections to cloud services. So you need to know what two-hundred cloud IP addresses each device should be allowed to connect to both now, and next Tuesday, and figure that out by sniffing the device's traffic, bot for the current firmware version, and future ones, and for products that do not exist yet.
A home product would be possible, but would need to be auto-updated frequently with policies made by a lot of paid professionals. A few of the NGFW vendors have started to size down towards the home-office market, e.g. the PA-200 series. Decidedly not open source, however. pfSense is not quite there yet feature-wise.
Now, if previous posters suggested. all IoT devices adhered to a standard to make this easier, it would not need as much support, but I'm not holding my breath for that... there are so many standards to choose from and its too easy to roll your own.
This is a prime example of why IDPs should just be IDPs and nothing else. Do one thing and do it well, separation of responsibilities, etc.
The mystery to me here is why people who were willing to overlook blatant racism and sexism somehow could not also see that Trump has all the characteristics that will make him even more corrupt than Clinton, including a track record of scamming people.
Situations like this is where rational people are supposed to weigh sources based on their overall reliability, compare them to other sources/information, and figure out the reliability of information by weight and logic, rather than throwing babies out with the bathwater.
Everyone wants a 100% trustworthy news source so they do not have to think for themselves. 99% won't do, apparently. The truly crazy part is where, after rejecting sources that are relatively reliable, they fall hook line and sinker for a bullshit post on their uncle's blog.
People who keep saying this played a major role in getting you-know-who elected.
This is a horrible mis-attribution of blame. The argument is that the thin-skinned should be held blameless for being thin-skinned, and we should blame the people who got them upset. No. The thin-skinned are adults. They don't act like it, and they should be held accountable for that.
Also, no one would picnic under trees...
I'm quite averse enough to arboreal detritus to avoid this already, but yeah.
Next I suppose people will want IP packets to have unique machine identities attached
No, but it would sure be ice if ISPs would ensure they are coming from the actual owner of the subnet.
This. And I only had to scroll to 5/6th of the way to the bottom of the comments to find the sensible one. Who says ACs don't contribute?
one can merely just know another person's name and some easy to know other information to vote in his or her place.
One can try, but in my state at least, your chances of being caught are pretty high.
Since the process of validating an identity is already something the CA industry is gearing up for, it would be easier to implement this through DANE with stapled EVC PKI certificates. However, as many have pointed out, anonymity itself should not be banned. Misrepresentation of some other person's identity should probably be, but not anonymity.
I my state you just state your name, and they already have your address in the roll. They mark the entry to indicate I have voted. So if someone tried to use my name, I'd get to the poll and find out they think I already voted. Or if they showed up after me, the poll workers would have to look into them. Further, if someone who had not voted wanted to know if their name had been used, they could pretty easily check into the matter. How often has that happened, to anyone? Almost never, because it would be stupid to try... especially since poll workers tend to be from the immediate community and just might know the person who you are trying to impersonate.
Then after voting, the same process happens with a different set of poll workers, who are seated at a distance to the first set, for redundancy.
Eligibility verification happens instead at registration time. and when town clerks clean old entries off the lists. This is when it should happen, to keep the polls running smoothly.
The two can coexist. DNS (through DANE PKI stapling) could allow you to tell which sites have been verified by a CA to belong to a real name, through an EVC, but not require all sites to have an EVC.
How to present this to users is the real question... browser and OS manufacturers would be tempted to put scary indicators up for non-verified identities. How to express to users that a site not vouched for by a real individual but there could be good reasons for such a site to exist, while at the same time encouraging users to pay attention to whether there is a real individual doing the vouching in situations where they should is perhaps tricky.
Domain names are a nickname for an IP address, nothing more
No they are resources in their own right. In fact a domain name need not even have an A or AAAA record. It can point to other types of resources.
Or DANE with an EVC