Lots of "Public Opinion" is generated by non-citizen actors, that is, people hiding behind anonymity and money. Laws could fix this, but, alas, there is more money than there are people with guts.
why should you care that someone is making more, a lot more, than you?
Well, they probably don't pay near the tax rate I do, and they have the ability to incorporate and speak more often in elections than I do. Other than that, I personally don't hold a vague, nonspecific grudge.
Everyone is pretending. Everyone plays make-believe to support their own side.
Pretending that you can control everyone is folly. Wanting to is worse.
The plans you seem to advocate will take a thousand years to impact what is already set in motion.
It will be ugly, brutish and nasty. Pretending it won't happen in our lifetime is folly. Pretending you can stop it in a dozen lifetimes probably is, too.
You misread me -- my question is NOT regarding the warming.
If we accept the inputs are creating an output, what on Earth makes you conclude that the actions we take in the midst of a massive human output of "bad X" will, in fact, minimize the impact of a global trend which is causing immediate, measurable harm? The plans you seem to advocate will take a thousand years to impact what is already set in motion.
You see, we are a global society, which makes global waste, which turns, in part, to heat. That heat will cook the poor.
It will be ugly, brutish and nasty. And pretending it won't happen is folly.
The problem with your line of thinking here is that these companies already had government contracts, and
Elemental’s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. And Elemental was just one of hundreds of Supermicro customers.
So, as far as being the "reason" for dumping Supermicro at that time, "government contracts" do not compute.
The source of the story is an ex-Mossad spook with ex-Mossad spooks on the corporate board. "Trump" is too simple of an answer, but you may not be on the wrong track...
a targeted attack on a single machine using interception doesn't really make it likely there was compromise of Supermicro's supply chain at the factory level.
The "single machine", according to the story, had a false ethernet port manufactured into it. What is your more likely explanation?
Interestingly, though, the named source for this article is an ex-spook for Israel. We are definitely in Hardball territory with this one, kids.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of "Public Opinion" is generated by non-citizen actors, that is, people hiding behind anonymity and money. Laws could fix this, but, alas, there is more money than there are people with guts.
why should you care that someone is making more, a lot more, than you?
Well, they probably don't pay near the tax rate I do, and they have the ability to incorporate and speak more often in elections than I do. Other than that, I personally don't hold a vague, nonspecific grudge.
What the fuck are you talking about? I am poor, and you probably are too.
Everyone is pretending. Everyone plays make-believe to support their own side.
Pretending that you can control everyone is folly. Wanting to is worse.
The plans you seem to advocate will take a thousand years to impact what is already set in motion.
It will be ugly, brutish and nasty. Pretending it won't happen in our lifetime is folly. Pretending you can stop it in a dozen lifetimes probably is, too.
Pretending? I can't do anything about it. I'm outnumbered by morons.
OMFG nerd STFU if you have nothing to contribute. This is about policy, not science.
If we could reverse the last 50 years we'd be doing pretty good. Of course we can't reverse anything until we stop producing more.
If the latter were to magically happen, what time scale do you think the former would take?
Cutting back isnt about reversing climate change that's already happened, it's about stopping its continued growth
When do you think the impact of the industrial revolution, to date, will fully be absorbed by the biosphere?
When do you think the reduction of carbon inputs will begin to reduce the impact to the biosphere?
I am asking for an integer, plus or minus a thousand years.
doubt about AGW
You misread me -- my question is NOT regarding the warming.
If we accept the inputs are creating an output, what on Earth makes you conclude that the actions we take in the midst of a massive human output of "bad X" will, in fact, minimize the impact of a global trend which is causing immediate, measurable harm? The plans you seem to advocate will take a thousand years to impact what is already set in motion.
You see, we are a global society, which makes global waste, which turns, in part, to heat. That heat will cook the poor.
It will be ugly, brutish and nasty. And pretending it won't happen is folly.
Hello. That does not answer the question.
The question is, how long is the rehabilitation going to take, realistically? And the answer is thermodynamic in nature.
The wild conspiracy theory phase is actually how it started.
But while I have you here, how long is it supposed to take to reverse centuries of carbon pollution's effect on atmospheric heat retention?
I have a pretty solid hunch it's going to be longer than "centuries," but I'd like to see what others think.
Let's assume that particulate carbon increases the retained atmospheric heat.
How long will it take to counteract this process by reducing human-generated carbon?
Show your work.
I don't think you're thinking this through.
A *sting* -- hadn't considered that; nice theory fitting many facts.
Yay! Moral victory! ........
Yeah, but it's a constant arms race with YT crippling itself.
Bbbbbut Zaphod!
...I don't know why I doubted you. Jeez, what a crock of shit. Bing gives ya what ya actually searched for...
Granting all the following: the public doesn't have any information on this; this second story is much less 'frightening' than the first.
Elemental’s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. And Elemental was just one of hundreds of Supermicro customers.
So, as far as being the "reason" for dumping Supermicro at that time, "government contracts" do not compute.
It's also inconsistent with the first story.
Because it's a different set of hardware supply hacks.
...it was only a software issue...
Sorry, jack: there's not any claim by Amazon or Apple that there even WAS an issue. Try again.
"The module looks really innocent, high quality and 'original' but it was added as part of a supply chain attack," he said.
Now, he may be wrong, but your partial version of events is not what the article's partial version of events is.
Unfortunately, your post raises more questions than it answers. Go read the first article again.
The story is a plant. The Trump admin is
The source of the story is an ex-Mossad spook with ex-Mossad spooks on the corporate board. "Trump" is too simple of an answer, but you may not be on the wrong track...
a targeted attack on a single machine using interception doesn't really make it likely there was compromise of Supermicro's supply chain at the factory level.
The "single machine", according to the story, had a false ethernet port manufactured into it. What is your more likely explanation?
Interestingly, though, the named source for this article is an ex-spook for Israel. We are definitely in Hardball territory with this one, kids.