Subsidies for archaic expensive outmoded fossil fuels are the problem.
No cost for pollution.
Exemptions for older less efficient fossil fuel plants.
Subsidies for fossil fuel extraction on public and private lands at rates often 1/1000th what they would be in a capitalist non-taxpayer-subsidized market.
Exemptions from costs for oil spills and the ability to go bankrupt and let the taxpayer pay for the cleanup.
Exemptions from the cost of war to support fossil fuels.
...say a carbon tax designed to recoup the many trillions of dollars that will need to be spent on adaptation to fossil-fuel-caused climate change and on compensation of whole climate-displaced populations and farmers, fishers etc and reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed in climate-change-induced wars... (such as Syria, Sudan,...)
then wind and solar would already be far cheaper than fossil-fuel energy.
We don't have such a tax or tax ramp plan, since the people who control the oil resource have most of the money, and thus have most of the politicians, and have most of the voters who are subject to the messages in paid marketing and disinformation.
Prediction: Too much uncomfortable truth in one post will probably get this downmodded as troll. That just shows how imbalanced current discourse on this topic has become, due to oil money interests.
A Pigovian tax (carbon tax) has less potential for rent seeking. Politicians can steal a lot more money for themselves and others using cap and trade schemes.
Even if I had a Yahoo account, I can't imaging using it for anything that would "ruin my life." It's Yahoo, not Ashley-Madison.
Various ISPs like AT&T contract email and subscriber services out to Yahoo. So I would not assume that just because you do not have a Yahoo account that your data was not lost.
Given the dismal state of computer security, why on Earth would anyone with half a brain think that a fully cashless economy is a desirable goal? Depending on digital cash seems to me entirely too much like renting a residence at the base of an elderly dam with water seeping from visible cracks.
Why would the government care about computer security? It is not their money and they are usually the ones undermining security so they can take advantage of it. Notice that when someone commits identity fraud against you, the bank says *your* identity was stolen; the bank did not lose anything. This is besides the government wanting to get rid of anonymous transactions via cash.
There is probably a lot of low hanging power efficiency gains to be had at a fairly low cost... But without regulation fostering competition companies aren't going to pay a low cost of major gains..
Presumably, most laptops/mobile devices already have a focus on power efficiency. But maybe there is some chargers that could easily be made more efficient.
I'm not expert here, but generally moderate regulation fosters innovation that wouldn't happen.
The only low handing power efficiency gains to be had at this point involve power management which invariably is poorly performing, buggy, or outright broken.
Efficiency in power conversion has been increased over time because it allows for a higher power density. Efficiency in high performance logic like processors and GPUs has been increased over time because power density has limited performance for years now so it is the only way to increase performance. That is why desktop and server processors have so many features originally present in low power processors for portable devices.
So there is nothing increased regulation will achieve here except at costs which will outweigh the benefits unless there is some regulation which will increase the reliability of power management. Ha! If they want computers and other devices to use less power, then raise the price of electricity.
If we are talking about non-computer products like cable, DSL, and satellite TV boxes, then there is a lot which can be done but that industry already owns the politicians.
Photo journalists do already have their devices seized. All the time. And they are often stripped of their memory card before before having it given back to them (if it is given back).
Discussions of US law enforcement practices are off topic.
At least Trump knows more about tits and ass than Obama knows about constitutional law. Unless Obama knows that constitutional law is void where prohibited.
If the police want to read the user's email content, they are required to get warrants.
Let's say I accept that law enforcement must get a warrant in cases like this. I really do not but I will stipulate it for the sake of discussion.
You used the word "read" which is aptly appropriate here. Law enforcement can copy the emails without a warrant. Further the DOJ interpretation is that anything seized may be searched by an automated system without being "read". Yet copying them and then searching them in an automated way does not count as search and seizure under the 4th amendment.
So no, I do not accept that law enforcement is required to get a warrant.
Dude get a new keyboard, that shit is making my eyes bleed!
These days, getting a "new" keyboard just seems to make the problem worse. Finding an *old* keyboard makes them disappear entirely. Go figure.
This reminds me of a minor plot point in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End where one of the characters bearing a resemblance to Richard Stallman unlawfully maintains old but secure computing hardware.
Let's take this to its logical extreme. Stipulate that the 5th amendment and no other right protects a password known by an individual and they may be compelled to reveal passwords. Further lets ignore if the person claims to have forgotten the password.
How could individuals wishing to protect their privacy arrange that? Easy. Store a password which is not feasible to memorize or plausibly not memorize in a mutable state; the act of seizing the physical embodiment of the password either destroys it or plausibly destroys it. If that sounds like magic, it is not. This is completely feasible.
Now what does the court or government do? The individual gains the benefits of strong password security but does not actually know the password which if it is seized, is destroyed or plausibly destroyed.
How can they extol the supposed advantages of a system like that so much without giving a single thought - or thinking that people won't - of all the horrible potential dangers of it?
It is easy when they do not have to implement it. The automakers will just have to, um, automake harder. I am sure GMC will have no problems with their stellar record of innovation and reliability.
Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Yes, the police probably will want that capability. But let's make sure they need to get a warrant before they can use it on an individual.
It's not like they can't put a lojack on a suspect's car. Or track the old-fashioned way without a warrant.
Law enforcement does not require a warrant (or anything) to automatically track you via your license plate, toll transponder, tire inflation sensors, or cellular phone. Why would they need one or any justification to track you via this?
Except USB only allows 100W maximum power draw. There are many mobile workstations and gaming laptops that exceed this limit. I am on a laptop that uses a 200W adapter and I know a few that come with 300W.
They could use more than one USBC charger in parallel. Except for Apple, Apple only gets to have one USBC port and just to be fair, it may only be used for one thing at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone looked at the really poor numbers of China? Way down, big trouble, dead! Xi Jinping, no leadership, will be out! Sad.
That is not reassuring when a country has millions of unhappy young males and nuclear weapons.
Read The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy.
So what you are saying is we need to put more people in prison? That seems easy enough. We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!
No chance. China needs the US to export its goods here. Loss of exports -> unemployment -> social unrest.
Do you mean like the way Germany's largest trading partner before WW2 was France?
Shakespeare can only be truly appreciated in the original iShakespeare form.
Plus an adapter isn't really much of a pain in the arse for something that sits on your desk.
It sure is when it has the reliability of an Apple adapter or anything Apple makes with a cable.
Subsidies for archaic expensive outmoded fossil fuels are the problem.
No cost for pollution.
Exemptions for older less efficient fossil fuel plants.
Subsidies for fossil fuel extraction on public and private lands at rates often 1/1000th what they would be in a capitalist non-taxpayer-subsidized market.
Exemptions from costs for oil spills and the ability to go bankrupt and let the taxpayer pay for the cleanup.
Exemptions from the cost of war to support fossil fuels.
...say a carbon tax designed to recoup the many trillions of dollars that will need to be spent on adaptation to fossil-fuel-caused climate change and on compensation of whole climate-displaced populations and farmers, fishers etc and reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed in climate-change-induced wars... (such as Syria, Sudan,...)
then wind and solar would already be far cheaper than fossil-fuel energy.
We don't have such a tax or tax ramp plan, since the people who control the oil resource have most of the money,
and thus have most of the politicians,
and have most of the voters who are subject to the messages in paid marketing and disinformation.
Prediction: Too much uncomfortable truth in one post will probably get this downmodded as troll. That just shows how imbalanced current discourse on this topic has become, due to oil money interests.
A Pigovian tax (carbon tax) has less potential for rent seeking. Politicians can steal a lot more money for themselves and others using cap and trade schemes.
Even if I had a Yahoo account, I can't imaging using it for anything that would "ruin my life." It's Yahoo, not Ashley-Madison.
Various ISPs like AT&T contract email and subscriber services out to Yahoo. So I would not assume that just because you do not have a Yahoo account that your data was not lost.
Given the dismal state of computer security, why on Earth would anyone with half a brain think that a fully cashless economy is a desirable goal? Depending on digital cash seems to me entirely too much like renting a residence at the base of an elderly dam with water seeping from visible cracks.
Why would the government care about computer security? It is not their money and they are usually the ones undermining security so they can take advantage of it. Notice that when someone commits identity fraud against you, the bank says *your* identity was stolen; the bank did not lose anything. This is besides the government wanting to get rid of anonymous transactions via cash.
There is probably a lot of low hanging power efficiency gains to be had at a fairly low cost... But without regulation fostering competition companies aren't going to pay a low cost of major gains..
Presumably, most laptops/mobile devices already have a focus on power efficiency. But maybe there is some chargers that could easily be made more efficient.
I'm not expert here, but generally moderate regulation fosters innovation that wouldn't happen.
The only low handing power efficiency gains to be had at this point involve power management which invariably is poorly performing, buggy, or outright broken.
Efficiency in power conversion has been increased over time because it allows for a higher power density. Efficiency in high performance logic like processors and GPUs has been increased over time because power density has limited performance for years now so it is the only way to increase performance. That is why desktop and server processors have so many features originally present in low power processors for portable devices.
So there is nothing increased regulation will achieve here except at costs which will outweigh the benefits unless there is some regulation which will increase the reliability of power management. Ha! If they want computers and other devices to use less power, then raise the price of electricity.
If we are talking about non-computer products like cable, DSL, and satellite TV boxes, then there is a lot which can be done but that industry already owns the politicians.
If your main source of threat is an angry train ticket inspector then you're not the type of person who needs these features.
You do if you are dealing with BART.
Photo journalists do already have their devices seized. All the time. And they are often stripped of their memory card before before having it given back to them (if it is given back).
Discussions of US law enforcement practices are off topic.
Wouldn't the corrupt police ask you (politely of course) for your encryption key?
I can never remember that thing; it was in the camera bag you confiscated. Wait, you mean you lost the encryption key when you seized my camera?
nVidia went with nForce because "pile of crap" was taken.
At least Trump knows more about tits and ass than Obama knows about constitutional law. Unless Obama knows that constitutional law is void where prohibited.
If the police want to read the user's email content, they are required to get warrants.
Let's say I accept that law enforcement must get a warrant in cases like this. I really do not but I will stipulate it for the sake of discussion.
You used the word "read" which is aptly appropriate here. Law enforcement can copy the emails without a warrant. Further the DOJ interpretation is that anything seized may be searched by an automated system without being "read". Yet copying them and then searching them in an automated way does not count as search and seizure under the 4th amendment.
So no, I do not accept that law enforcement is required to get a warrant.
First off, OP's suggestion that the NSA guys need to be murdered is a bit over the top. The ammo box is the LAST of the four boxes, not the first.
Have any of the other boxes worked? I have not noticed.
Dude get a new keyboard, that shit is making my eyes bleed!
These days, getting a "new" keyboard just seems to make the problem worse. Finding an *old* keyboard makes them disappear entirely. Go figure.
This reminds me of a minor plot point in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End where one of the characters bearing a resemblance to Richard Stallman unlawfully maintains old but secure computing hardware.
Wow, Democrats keep using that word 'transparent' - I do not think it means what you think it does.
It is transparency when they do it.
Let's take this to its logical extreme. Stipulate that the 5th amendment and no other right protects a password known by an individual and they may be compelled to reveal passwords. Further lets ignore if the person claims to have forgotten the password.
How could individuals wishing to protect their privacy arrange that? Easy. Store a password which is not feasible to memorize or plausibly not memorize in a mutable state; the act of seizing the physical embodiment of the password either destroys it or plausibly destroys it. If that sounds like magic, it is not. This is completely feasible.
Now what does the court or government do? The individual gains the benefits of strong password security but does not actually know the password which if it is seized, is destroyed or plausibly destroyed.
How can they extol the supposed advantages of a system like that so much without giving a single thought - or thinking that people won't - of all the horrible potential dangers of it?
It is easy when they do not have to implement it. The automakers will just have to, um, automake harder. I am sure GMC will have no problems with their stellar record of innovation and reliability.
Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Yes, the police probably will want that capability. But let's make sure they need to get a warrant before they can use it on an individual.
It's not like they can't put a lojack on a suspect's car. Or track the old-fashioned way without a warrant.
Law enforcement does not require a warrant (or anything) to automatically track you via your license plate, toll transponder, tire inflation sensors, or cellular phone. Why would they need one or any justification to track you via this?
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
They were going to be sacked anyway. What is Trump going to do? Sack them twice?
Except USB only allows 100W maximum power draw. There are many mobile workstations and gaming laptops that exceed this limit. I am on a laptop that uses a 200W adapter and I know a few that come with 300W.
They could use more than one USBC charger in parallel. Except for Apple, Apple only gets to have one USBC port and just to be fair, it may only be used for one thing at a time.