...bc they don't normally connect to regular Internet services.
Its probably a forgone conclusion that Mixmaster and even Tor will be attacked by authorities (yes, even by 'free and democratic' regimes) because someone will use it to make meatspace threats.
With a P2P only anonymizer like I2P, connections/proxies to the regular Internet are rare so the anon network as a whole is less likely to come under attack due to threats made by some hothead or provocateur. And threats made within the anon space are far less worrisome because the threat recipient is also protected by a significant degree of anonymity.
The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon’s chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher.
Did you even bother to read the response?
Literally the only way Apple could win is by not spending *any* money on a datacenter.
Apart from the likelihood that Apple is lying about power consumption, or they are building a completely new type of data center that consumes huge amounts of space and money in return for relatively little computing power, or they discovered a way to make data centers 5X as efficient as the current state of the art. Perhaps the new facility will include an unannounced detail like, say, office space or a shopping mall? Problem is, you don't get away with that kind of surprise without the local authorities shutting you down.
Incidentally, I went through the report and on page 20 it takes account of Apple's alt energy plans. Greenpeace (and Amazon, for that matter) simply don't believe the 20MW usage claim. Apple appear to have been secretive from the outset (big surprise) and didn't respond to inquiries, so this consumer is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure the rest of the data center operators find Apple's (and not Greenpeace's) numbers difficult to abide as well.
If I wanted to give Apple a pass here, I would guess that they are initially going to use only a fraction of the new facility space, and hold on to the rest for future expansion by Apple or another data center operator leasing from Apple. Even in that case, they are telling 'truth' about the initial state of the project, but still lying by omission.
All the frothing against environmentalists in this thread aside, GP does have an interesting response to Apple's denial...
While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centers, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data center. When Apple announced they were building a data center in North Carolina, they announced a commitment to invest $1 Billion (USD) over 10 years. For a number of the facilities in the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, we made estimates of power demand using fairly conservative industry benchmarks for data center investments: 1MW of power demand from servers for every $15 million, though the number is often closer to $8 Million for many companies. Thus, a $1B investment should net Apple 66MW of computer power demand. Assuming a fairly standard energy efficiency factor for new data centers for non-computer energy demand of 50% gives you a 100MW data center. While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.
Size Matters
The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon’s chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher. We made these estimates because companies like Apple and Amazon have not disclosed details of how much energy data centers use now and will in the future. We provided Apple with our data prior to releasing the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, and while they did not agree with our estimate, they declined to provide specific information on their energy demand.
My short summary of the argument is that in this case Apple is trying to use secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, and Greenpeace has done their due diligence. Frankly, if Apple won't communicate with an enviro group as large as Greenpeace on matters of waste and power consumption, then it is Apple's attitude and business model that I have to question.
Always connect to your home or work VPN when traveling.
SSL in the form of HTTPS would solve the problem only here and there, depending on which sites are setup for it, and if so, whether or not their secured pages have includes that are plain HTTP.
If you go the VPN route (which will be based on SSL or other crypto) then all your activity is subject to only one ISP's quirks (that of your home or business) wherever you happen to be. In addition, you get essential protection from the scads of random criminals and malware carriers that your system will encounter on the various Wifi networks with which you connect.
if its covered at all. This issue is supposed to be do-or-die for the media, but they're keeping it pretty quiet.
This is one of the many corporatist putsches where they expect to write the legislation and pay the campaign funds (or hold out the golden parachutes) and have it pass quietly while the media keep us distracted with 98% nonsense. Its like the debate over extending Medicare to the rest of the population -- oh, wait! There was no debate: We were told we could either deal with the private insurance companies, or the private insurance companies. And healthcare reform was a media megaproduction compared to ACTA/SOPA/DMCA.
Because I'm hearing an awful lot of criticism against the current neoliberal/globalist system being dismissed as "cynicism". Real cynicism is a comment on human nature, that things will always be the same or worse... and you have to do a gigantic amount of conflation to read that into the AC's comment (and I think that's what you did).
What you told the AC was essentially that people continuing to act in self-interest (you give having children as an example) are the ones who have hope for future generations... borrowed from the classic market-fundamentalist stance that only acting in self-interest can create optimum outcomes for the whole (or perhaps you were unknowingly contradicting yourself).
The only change I can see between the two of you is the AC going against the grain and getting a vasectomy. And much as you would like to decry such an evaluation, by most societal indicators the vasectomy is a much bigger change against the status quo than someone continuing to have kids. Both of your stances reek of dualism, an all-or-nothing viewpoint, in addition to acute selfishness. You just have different ideas of the form that selfish 'virtue' takes.
If I had to choose between the two of you, I'd have to say the AC - but only in the context of our current skyrocketing population. Additionally, you seem to imply that any person who does not try to have children can be labeled a "cynic", so your stance seems to me like the one more fervently asking to be pushed to its logical and destructive conclusion.
...technology is making things more efficient. The problem is that the demand for things keeps increasing as more and more countries join the high-tech revolution.
So, aparently, technology can make "things" more efficient, but can't do the same for life in general.
I think a big part of our problem is that we have come to worship consumer technology as a religion and congregate around its impressive cathedrals (fossil fuel tech), and in doing so we resist science and new/responsible technologies as heresy. Even the specific label for the heretics has remained unchanged: People who today promote the use of sustainable technologies (incl. renewables and birth control) are called "Luddites" about as often as they are called environmentalists. They oppose some technologies, so they are given a label used to denote someone who opposes all new technology. Of course, there's more to it than that: The environmentalist solutions not only tend to promote decentralization of power generation and other means of production, but they also want to dispense with the culture of constantly creating and reinforcing consumption patterns in people. So environmentalism is a threat to the status quo.
Enter the Singularity cult: It's not only religious but is also intensely pro-consumerism. All our gadgetry from the high consumption is supposed to "wake up" and someday become the messiah.
AV vendors would certainly like to claim otherwise. But some OSes are better at protection than others.
The lack of any expectation of OS protection is what made Windows the festering cesspit that the general population associates with pain. Regardless of whether its attached to a PC or not, there isn't a single MS product today with the 'Windows' moniker that isn't either losing money or in decline. (And thank goodness for that!)
PS - The article is about a trojan (user-installed) which you are mistakenly confusing with a virus.
Marketshare has an effect, but the pro-Microsoft crowd vastly oversells it when excusing the prevalence of malware on a given platform (Windows).
Mac marketshare dropped precipitously well over a decade ago, yet malware was a very big concern on pre-OSX systems. Even though Mac marketshare has recovered these days, the severity of infection rates on OS X doesn't even approach how bad it was in the pre-Unix days.
and its backbone. With any luck, when it happens, the politicians won't have a chance to play musical-chairs again with common carrier/service classifications.
I would have guessed that Korean brands like Samsung and LG still do a lot of manufacturing in Korea, under better conditions than what China usually has.
I'm glad posters with views that twisted feel a need to post as AC and hide behind the anonymous mod system. That makes them jingoists and cowards.
The only thing the US can be blamed for is naïveté.
Acting out a pattern of violence over decades, especially for gain, is never associated with being naive. Not among the civilized or the sane.
As for making stuff up, I would put Klein's veracity against that of commentators commonly found on Wall St media outlets between 2002 and 2008. Start with yellowcake (made up), aluminum tubes (made up), photos of massed troops near Saudi border (made up in Photoshop). Going both forward and backward in time, there are numerous fabrications and deliberate distortions, some of them created by public relations (propaganda) firms for media consumption. Almost any lie about this years new-new-enemy or old-new enemy is uncritically flogged as gospel and real evidence is shut out until its too late.
And most people around the world now know this.
Much as you like to insist the US gets the benefit of the doubt and retain some deranged aura of innocence, I gotta tell you that by and large people who are not directly subjected to the US culture are not buying your freeper-apologist "violent-and-innocent-oh-well" schtick. It doesn't go over very well in this country, either.
A major point of the article I posted was that the situation in Libya was very much unlike the Arab Spring in places like Tunisia and Egypt.
The latter pipes gas from Turkmenistan to India. Again, what the fuck has that got to do with the US? What do either of these have to do with oil and the petrodollar?
Why would the U.S. goad the world into using only dollars for purchasing oil and gas without creating ways for them to access those resources? Also, the article looks at the role that international banking plays... no one is saying that its a simplistic U.S.-against-the-world contest, although it is true that the U.S. establishment is interested in maximizing globalization. It is also true that uniting Africa under a common gold-backed currency would have created a continent-wide hold out from globalization (which includes unfettered corporate access to oil).
The rest of your 'argument' (which is little more than a mixture of ad-hominem and 'we just don't do those things here' posturing) doesn't hold up well either.
I don't know what tech companies will do as they are increasingly being paid by the govt to perform "legal intercept" spying against us.
One thing is for sure: The working definition of a 'suspicious person' will be someone making encrypted connections with parties who do not define the US govt international "interests" e.g. addresses that do not belong to the govt itself or large corporations. So, if you HTTPS or VPN into large corporations why then you are merely sampling the apple pie from the wholesome cupboard of freedom itself... and God help if you like to connect with anyone else.
Incidentally, the things described here as terrorist tools are mostly things you would also need to defend against public WLAN hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
...bc they don't normally connect to regular Internet services.
Its probably a forgone conclusion that Mixmaster and even Tor will be attacked by authorities (yes, even by 'free and democratic' regimes) because someone will use it to make meatspace threats.
With a P2P only anonymizer like I2P, connections/proxies to the regular Internet are rare so the anon network as a whole is less likely to come under attack due to threats made by some hothead or provocateur. And threats made within the anon space are far less worrisome because the threat recipient is also protected by a significant degree of anonymity.
The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon’s chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher.
Did you even bother to read the response?
Literally the only way Apple could win is by not spending *any* money on a datacenter.
Apart from the likelihood that Apple is lying about power consumption, or they are building a completely new type of data center that consumes huge amounts of space and money in return for relatively little computing power, or they discovered a way to make data centers 5X as efficient as the current state of the art. Perhaps the new facility will include an unannounced detail like, say, office space or a shopping mall? Problem is, you don't get away with that kind of surprise without the local authorities shutting you down.
Incidentally, I went through the report and on page 20 it takes account of Apple's alt energy plans. Greenpeace (and Amazon, for that matter) simply don't believe the 20MW usage claim. Apple appear to have been secretive from the outset (big surprise) and didn't respond to inquiries, so this consumer is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure the rest of the data center operators find Apple's (and not Greenpeace's) numbers difficult to abide as well.
If I wanted to give Apple a pass here, I would guess that they are initially going to use only a fraction of the new facility space, and hold on to the rest for future expansion by Apple or another data center operator leasing from Apple. Even in that case, they are telling 'truth' about the initial state of the project, but still lying by omission.
All the frothing against environmentalists in this thread aside, GP does have an interesting response to Apple's denial...
While it is good to see Apple acknowledge it should reveal more details of the energy consumption of its data centers, the information they released today does not add up with what they have reported to be the size of the investment and physical size of the data center. When Apple announced they were building a data center in North Carolina, they announced a commitment to invest $1 Billion (USD) over 10 years. For a number of the facilities in the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, we made estimates of power demand using fairly conservative industry benchmarks for data center investments: 1MW of power demand from servers for every $15 million, though the number is often closer to $8 Million for many companies. Thus, a $1B investment should net Apple 66MW of computer power demand. Assuming a fairly standard energy efficiency factor for new data centers for non-computer energy demand of 50% gives you a 100MW data center. While Apple is well known for making more expensive consumer products, if Apple’s plans for the $ 1Billion investment only generates 20MW in power demand, that would be taking the “Apple premium” to a whole new level.
Size Matters
The size of the facility at 500,000 sq foot would also indicate a much larger power demand. Amazon’s chief web engineer recently conservatively estimated that based just on the size of the facility, the iDatacenter would consume at least 78MW, and speculated that it is probably higher.
We made these estimates because companies like Apple and Amazon have not disclosed details of how much energy data centers use now and will in the future. We provided Apple with our data prior to releasing the “How Clean is Your Cloud?” report, and while they did not agree with our estimate, they declined to provide specific information on their energy demand.
My short summary of the argument is that in this case Apple is trying to use secrecy to avoid public scrutiny, and Greenpeace has done their due diligence. Frankly, if Apple won't communicate with an enviro group as large as Greenpeace on matters of waste and power consumption, then it is Apple's attitude and business model that I have to question.
Always connect to your home or work VPN when traveling.
SSL in the form of HTTPS would solve the problem only here and there, depending on which sites are setup for it, and if so, whether or not their secured pages have includes that are plain HTTP.
If you go the VPN route (which will be based on SSL or other crypto) then all your activity is subject to only one ISP's quirks (that of your home or business) wherever you happen to be. In addition, you get essential protection from the scads of random criminals and malware carriers that your system will encounter on the various Wifi networks with which you connect.
if its covered at all. This issue is supposed to be do-or-die for the media, but they're keeping it pretty quiet.
This is one of the many corporatist putsches where they expect to write the legislation and pay the campaign funds (or hold out the golden parachutes) and have it pass quietly while the media keep us distracted with 98% nonsense. Its like the debate over extending Medicare to the rest of the population -- oh, wait! There was no debate: We were told we could either deal with the private insurance companies, or the private insurance companies. And healthcare reform was a media megaproduction compared to ACTA/SOPA/DMCA.
Quantum Computer Services (aka QuantumLink, which was basically AOL for Commodore 64 users... later they had AppleLink for Apples).
Other early services I remember:
The Source (later merged with CompuServe)
Portal (semi-popular Unix accounts with some Internet access)
Galaxy BBS ... a large PC-based BBS in New Mexico trying to be CompuServe
Fidonet and Citadel networked BBSs
Because I'm hearing an awful lot of criticism against the current neoliberal/globalist system being dismissed as "cynicism". Real cynicism is a comment on human nature, that things will always be the same or worse... and you have to do a gigantic amount of conflation to read that into the AC's comment (and I think that's what you did).
What you told the AC was essentially that people continuing to act in self-interest (you give having children as an example) are the ones who have hope for future generations... borrowed from the classic market-fundamentalist stance that only acting in self-interest can create optimum outcomes for the whole (or perhaps you were unknowingly contradicting yourself).
The only change I can see between the two of you is the AC going against the grain and getting a vasectomy. And much as you would like to decry such an evaluation, by most societal indicators the vasectomy is a much bigger change against the status quo than someone continuing to have kids. Both of your stances reek of dualism, an all-or-nothing viewpoint, in addition to acute selfishness. You just have different ideas of the form that selfish 'virtue' takes.
If I had to choose between the two of you, I'd have to say the AC - but only in the context of our current skyrocketing population. Additionally, you seem to imply that any person who does not try to have children can be labeled a "cynic", so your stance seems to me like the one more fervently asking to be pushed to its logical and destructive conclusion.
So the solution is a proper application of probability theory. Probability theory didn't fail. We failed to use it.
I think we failed to use the Precautionary Principle alongside it.
Great post!
...technology is making things more efficient. The problem is that the demand for things keeps increasing as more and more countries join the high-tech revolution.
So, aparently, technology can make "things" more efficient, but can't do the same for life in general.
I think a big part of our problem is that we have come to worship consumer technology as a religion and congregate around its impressive cathedrals (fossil fuel tech), and in doing so we resist science and new/responsible technologies as heresy. Even the specific label for the heretics has remained unchanged: People who today promote the use of sustainable technologies (incl. renewables and birth control) are called "Luddites" about as often as they are called environmentalists. They oppose some technologies, so they are given a label used to denote someone who opposes all new technology. Of course, there's more to it than that: The environmentalist solutions not only tend to promote decentralization of power generation and other means of production, but they also want to dispense with the culture of constantly creating and reinforcing consumption patterns in people. So environmentalism is a threat to the status quo.
Enter the Singularity cult: It's not only religious but is also intensely pro-consumerism. All our gadgetry from the high consumption is supposed to "wake up" and someday become the messiah.
dissident and/or revolutionary.
AV vendors would certainly like to claim otherwise. But some OSes are better at protection than others.
The lack of any expectation of OS protection is what made Windows the festering cesspit that the general population associates with pain. Regardless of whether its attached to a PC or not, there isn't a single MS product today with the 'Windows' moniker that isn't either losing money or in decline. (And thank goodness for that!)
PS - The article is about a trojan (user-installed) which you are mistakenly confusing with a virus.
Marketshare has an effect, but the pro-Microsoft crowd vastly oversells it when excusing the prevalence of malware on a given platform (Windows).
Mac marketshare dropped precipitously well over a decade ago, yet malware was a very big concern on pre-OSX systems. Even though Mac marketshare has recovered these days, the severity of infection rates on OS X doesn't even approach how bad it was in the pre-Unix days.
Merely turning on encryption doesn't get you anonymity.
and its backbone. With any luck, when it happens, the politicians won't have a chance to play musical-chairs again with common carrier/service classifications.
http://www.quantrix.com/
If its similar to this then its very interesting, indeed.
I would have guessed that Korean brands like Samsung and LG still do a lot of manufacturing in Korea, under better conditions than what China usually has.
Chrome: "No more OCSP for us" :-)
Banks: "Dooiiiyyeeee can we have IE6 back, pretty pleeeease?"
I'm glad posters with views that twisted feel a need to post as AC and hide behind the anonymous mod system. That makes them jingoists and cowards.
The only thing the US can be blamed for is naïveté.
Acting out a pattern of violence over decades, especially for gain, is never associated with being naive. Not among the civilized or the sane.
As for making stuff up, I would put Klein's veracity against that of commentators commonly found on Wall St media outlets between 2002 and 2008. Start with yellowcake (made up), aluminum tubes (made up), photos of massed troops near Saudi border (made up in Photoshop). Going both forward and backward in time, there are numerous fabrications and deliberate distortions, some of them created by public relations (propaganda) firms for media consumption. Almost any lie about this years new-new-enemy or old-new enemy is uncritically flogged as gospel and real evidence is shut out until its too late.
And most people around the world now know this.
Much as you like to insist the US gets the benefit of the doubt and retain some deranged aura of innocence, I gotta tell you that by and large people who are not directly subjected to the US culture are not buying your freeper-apologist "violent-and-innocent-oh-well" schtick. It doesn't go over very well in this country, either.
"quack quack quack conspiracy theory..."
A major point of the article I posted was that the situation in Libya was very much unlike the Arab Spring in places like Tunisia and Egypt.
The latter pipes gas from Turkmenistan to India. Again, what the fuck has that got to do with the US? What do either of these have to do with oil and the petrodollar?
Why would the U.S. goad the world into using only dollars for purchasing oil and gas without creating ways for them to access those resources? Also, the article looks at the role that international banking plays... no one is saying that its a simplistic U.S.-against-the-world contest, although it is true that the U.S. establishment is interested in maximizing globalization. It is also true that uniting Africa under a common gold-backed currency would have created a continent-wide hold out from globalization (which includes unfettered corporate access to oil).
The rest of your 'argument' (which is little more than a mixture of ad-hominem and 'we just don't do those things here' posturing) doesn't hold up well either.
VPN and other encrypted communications which are P2P in nature are suspicious in their eyes.
The FBI are saying go ahead and report them because they *might* be terrorists.
It's your desire to give the FBI the benefit of the doubt that is exaggerated.
I don't know what tech companies will do as they are increasingly being paid by the govt to perform "legal intercept" spying against us.
One thing is for sure: The working definition of a 'suspicious person' will be someone making encrypted connections with parties who do not define the US govt international "interests" e.g. addresses that do not belong to the govt itself or large corporations. So, if you HTTPS or VPN into large corporations why then you are merely sampling the apple pie from the wholesome cupboard of freedom itself... and God help if you like to connect with anyone else.
Incidentally, the things described here as terrorist tools are mostly things you would also need to defend against public WLAN hacking.
Criminals are a form of terrorist in my book.
There are fewer and fewer words these days...
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MD14Ak02.html
No wonder The Wall St. Journal is gushing.