An attacker who controls the meter also controls the meter's software, allowing him to cause it to literally explode."
.
No. Just no. Look them up, at most what they have is remote disconnect relays with a cycle time of 30 to 120 seconds. The aren't solenoids (wire coil relays) but stall motors that move the contanctor open or closed and are not fast acting.
That is their only active function. The rest are passive. So they might be able to fiddle the bill, or turn your power on and off. But make the meter explode? I've not seen any designs that would fail in that way. Admittedly, I've not seen every design, but most use a stall motor to move a spring loaded armature/contactor set open or closed.
See the Register for bills introduced within the past 6 years that were tabled without a hearing on this very point.
As a point of constitutional law, POTUS is unable to enact laws unless congress sends them to him for a signature. At most, he can veto a law, but he is unable to enact one.
My point is that I have doubt that Mr. Trump will canvas his party to support reform, both because I believe he would not welcome more oversight (both by his own words and by his own actions), and because the agribusiness conglomerates make very large contributions to a party that has a platform against regulation.
Reminds me of a joke about farmers: What's the fastest way to become a agribusiness millionaire? Start as an agribusiness billionaire.
Internet isn't the only choke hold business has on Americans. Some seed providers (who shall remain un-named by me, as I'm no fool and I don't want any more torts from that company) sues it's own customers, and even farmers that never used their seed. If a single seed blows over from another field and sprouts in your field, this company can (and does) sue the farmer down to his toenail lint. Then turns around and transfers the property to it's own farming conglomerate. Doesn't matter if they win, because in the long run that farmer they sued will likely end up bankrupt from the tort.
Same thing is going on with chicken and hogs. You can't raise your own stock anymore, you have to buy it from the packers, buy the feed they demand from distributors they specify, then once mature, sell it to only the packer that you bought the livestock from, all at prices the conglomerate sets.
If a farmer or rancher doesn't want to work that way, they are left with finding their own stock in a market that is all but dried up, and hope to sell on the spot export market because they won't be able to sell to national chains in the US.
Now, let's turn to our President Elect - will he do something about these inequalities? Doubtful. While he doesn't engage in agribusiness himself, I seriously doubt a serial bankrupter and contract violator will welcome any sort of increased oversight or reform.
Are we expecting cable companies to just willingly foot the distribution costs...
.
Since I pay my ISV for transit, yes, I expect them to actually provide the service I'm (over) paying them for. This is frequently the logical fallacy employed by telecoms when they describe people that use their transit as "data hogs not paying their fair share".
Operational costs of a network like a cable or telephone system are quite low. The real cost is in the network establishment, which is paid for by the builders of the neighborhood the home is built in, then given to the ISV (cable or telephone) once the area is nearing completion. The same is true for streets, side walks, power, water, gas, and sewers.
I am, of course, leaving out provisioning of content because for Internet, I don't need (or actually want) content from the cable or telephone company.
Maybe if the election had gone the other way the FCC might have been able to make them play nice for a time, but eventually they would find a way around any regulation.
Yes, exactly. The only way to beat the telecoms into providing an honest service at a price point that isn't usurious is to eliminate the monopoly rents and barriers to entry granted to them by law.
ISVs are already shutting down ports between customers. Also billing for every byte into or out of the router - including DDoS traffic.
TWC blocked ports above 1024 between their regional lans. If you were in Chicago, you could hit say port 4800 in Dallas. But if you were in Houston, you couldn't hit 4800 in Austin, but Chicago was just fine.
Spectrum bought out TWC and I don't have nearly the trouble any more, but that's not saying service prices aren't going up, because - Lookie there! - they are. I will say that packet loss is down by a large factor after the takeover.
I wonder, back in the dark ages of no cell phones, how police ever managed to solve any crimes. I mean, wow. Imagine not having something as useful as a personal snitch that we call a cell phone.
I've said it many times, and I'll go on saying it - I would not allow a cell phone on my property if I didn't have to have one for employment.
A cell phone is for my convenience - yet most frequently it is used to interrupt me, inconvenience me, and generally make my life a pain in the neck. And on top of which, it gives LEO information they can misinterpret to use against me. Someone murdered? Why, my phone was recorded as being within a half a block of the crime scene - I *must* be guilty. Never mind it's on the way to work, or doctor, or whatever. Cell phone evidence is almost never exculpatory, it's almost always used (or misused) to convict.
All one need do to get a chill up their spine is spend half an hour with LEO tools and a cell phone to understand just how bad it really is. That, or just read.
The CRTC is an even more toothless cur than the FCC is in the US. Nothing will change except the artful choreography with which the telecoms will dance out of the way of doing anything substantive. This is what they pay the politicians (in Canada and the US) to do for them, and they are getting their money's worth from the spend.
For various reasons, I must maintain a POTS line. It rings incessantly with scammers, spammers, politicians (but I repeat myself), and bill collectors looking for someone I don't know but has the same last name.
Simple solution: A DTMF circuit and a PIN, and turn off the ringer. Someone calls in, gets a message "Please enter the extension you are calling", and if they don't enter the correct pin, it hangs up the call. If they enter the correct pin, then the Pi fires a buzzer and the answering machine. Whitelisted numbers go to the Answering machine direct. If I'm home, I'll pick up.
Lately, Rachel from Card Services and the NRA are calling my cell phone.
Yes, all numbers are on the DNC list. No, it just seems to focus their attention.
If anyone would notice that their data from Linked In leaked. I mean, LinkedIn is such a data mining fanatic, it'd be hard to tell the difference between their normal spamming and spyware and someone else using that same data.
Most EC votes are bound, EG: They must vote the way they are told.
That said, those that voted for President Elect Trump knew exactly what they were voting for - and that's what they want. While I question the wisdom of their vote, I don't question they were simply uninformed of the consequences. My only worry is that Mr. Trump will turn out exactly as bad, or worse, than I expect. Just as Mr. Trump is president of the whole country, so am I bound to the consequences of the votes of those I vehemently disagree with. My only little ray of hope is that I'm mistaken, and those I disagree with were right.
Actually, not only can one have this both ways (somewhat), it's likely the correct thought. I'll explain: The invasive probing into the average American's lives are much deeper than most believe, and there is no real value for this vis-a-vi security and protection from terrorism. From the standpoint of stopping this illegal (well, we think it's illegal, we really don't know because they won't publish the laws they are using to authorize it, and the courts refuse to grant standing to challenge the laws) breach of privacy. So, on that head, yes, the NSA, CIA, FBI, CBP, ICE, marshals, and DEA at least need to be either reigned in or abolished, and likely more.
From the standpoint of actually stopping terrorists, it's not such a good thing. Luckly, there aren't many terrorist operating in the US. How do we know that? Because do you think for one red hot second they wouldn't be crowing from the rooftops about "how we protected you from these evil doers" if they had anything more than plots they make up and entrap mentally ill people into? Of course not.
As for public sector pay, those same people that voted for President Elect Trump are, for the most part, the very same people that scream about "fat cat paychecks" for useless and lazy drones. I know. I used to work in the public sector. I've been called a fat pig with both trotters in the trough, stupid, and worse, been spit on and otherwise assulted. Why on earth would I not quit and take 120%, 250%, 400% pay raise or more to work in the private sector? None the less, I stuck it out for many years because I felt I should do something for my fellow citizens. In the end, I had to capitulate and get more money, more responsive leadership, and less political football craziness. My gain is your loss.
Why the NSA feels that a conversation from an air craft is any more worthy of "security" attention than one from somewhere else. Besides, it will pass through a ground station anyway, so why bother with special attention, cost, and required resources.
As much eavesdropping going on in the name of "security" does little for "terrorism" anyway. It's used far more commonly in drug and financial cases to replace actually doing their job. At best it's used to prove a case; at worst, it's used to see if there's a case to be made.
What I find amusing is the number of people that just go bonkers over their cell phones. That damn thing is nothing but an opportunity for LEO to bag you. It is not your friend. It will never be a source of exculpatory evidence. It only will be used against you and will never, not ever, show innocence. (OK, -almost- never)
Folks say "Oh, I'm not worried, I'm not a criminal". Er, ever see the number of times a day the average American commits a crime? You may not think you are a criminal, but so many things are illegal that most do actually commit some sort of crime every day. It's just a matter of if LEO wants to enforce the law against -you- for whatever reason takes their fancy.
Right vs. left, just stop that nonsense. There has been no right and no left for at least a decade. The divide is between extremists and people who stand with both feet on the ground. Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.
I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I agree that extremism is more easily found, I'm not sure if that's because it's more popular or if it's simply because more individuals are willing to express it.
I do believe that both the right and the left engage in logical facilities (you should pardon the pun) left and right. A few examples:
Death penalty and abortion
Reducing taxes and budgets passed
Objecting to "nanny state" (vis a vi public support) by calling it racism, bemoaning food assistance while cutting access to birth control (Family Planning funding)
Loss of constitutional freedoms vs. gun legislation vs. disenfranchisement
Effectively limiting consumer protections (by Strengthening monopolies) while claiming to be pro-consumer
Preventing private right of action and forcing consumers to use binding arbitration (Might as well not even bother, you're not going to win even if you are right)
and on and on and on. I think the average US person has simply either gone nuckin' futz or they are lied to so completely and pervasively as to have no worthwhile information to base a rational decision on. It's so bad that I don't even bother talking to people anymore (haven't for the last 20 years). It's so bad that I am seriously limiting even discussion in fora such as here.
Worse, it's no better in other countries, and even worse in some.
I blame it on the commercialization of journalism, actions by special interests, and the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in public (and many private) education. The only answer I've found so far is to simply smile, nod, and back slowly away from the more vitriolic of them, and to not bother with media news outlets anymore.
NPR, PBS, BBC and a few others are attempting to get people talking to each other. So far, I've witnessed this devolve into brutal beatings twice. Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".
A few years ago I went through TSA with my laptop. Naturally they wanted to search it. No problem. I thought.
I'd forgotten that at the time, my documents directory auto synced whenever I logged into my network at home. At the time, I was writing a fiction story.
All kinds of excitement occurred.
Now I keep all my stuff in the cloud outside of "five eyes" treaty partners and any time I think I might have an "interaction" with LEO, I mercine wipe my drive and install fresh. I still get harassed because obviously I "must be a terrorist" because I don't use windows. Solution; Small windows boot partition by default and some random porn files. (If they don't find anything, they just keep looking. So I give them a little something obvious to keep them off my back.)
When did we start being more afraid of our own government than of terrorist? The world has gone crazy except for you and me, I'm slowly slipping away and I was never too sure about you.
" who interpret the Constitution exactly as it's written"
Might be good for the days of sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, slavery and no voting by women. Not too in touch with today. This is why the founders insisted that the constitution be capable of change in the first place.
Why is it when a judge finds something the right doesn't like, they are "activist" and "interpreting the constitution they way they wish it was" and when they like how the judge rules they are a "wise jurist."?
He's elected president. Not dictator. He doesn't have the power to "scrub the web."
Hum um. And he doesn't have the power to affect stock prices either.
It is true - directly has does not have that power. However, a simple observation "Gee, that's a nice business you have there. It would be a shame to have the FBI start investigating, the IRS poke around, and the SEC and FTC to look at every little thing you did and do..." is quite effective in securing cooperation on matters not directly within the delineated powers of any politician. This is one of many factors which seems to have escaped - or been ignored as unimportant - the notice of those that elected Mr. Trump.
Because President Elect Trump is a bastion of careful thought, absolute veracity, and considered policy I'm sure this will never, not ever, be an issue.
The H1B visa program is an excellent choice as a bell weather of what a Trump administration can be expected to do for the average person. Around tax time next year (April 15th) is about 90 days in office. Set a reminder folks. "April 15th. Look around and see what the H1B visa abuse situation is. TRUMP Promise."
Will he keep it or will he break it? I don't know. I have my thoughts but I will have them settled one way or the other by May.
Slashdot Mirror
.
No. Just no. Look them up, at most what they have is remote disconnect relays with a cycle time of 30 to 120 seconds. The aren't solenoids (wire coil relays) but stall motors that move the contanctor open or closed and are not fast acting. That is their only active function. The rest are passive. So they might be able to fiddle the bill, or turn your power on and off. But make the meter explode? I've not seen any designs that would fail in that way. Admittedly, I've not seen every design, but most use a stall motor to move a spring loaded armature/contactor set open or closed.
See the Register for bills introduced within the past 6 years that were tabled without a hearing on this very point.
As a point of constitutional law, POTUS is unable to enact laws unless congress sends them to him for a signature. At most, he can veto a law, but he is unable to enact one.
My point is that I have doubt that Mr. Trump will canvas his party to support reform, both because I believe he would not welcome more oversight (both by his own words and by his own actions), and because the agribusiness conglomerates make very large contributions to a party that has a platform against regulation.
It really is that simple.
Reminds me of a joke about farmers:
What's the fastest way to become a agribusiness millionaire?
Start as an agribusiness billionaire.
Internet isn't the only choke hold business has on Americans. Some seed providers (who shall remain un-named by me, as I'm no fool and I don't want any more torts from that company) sues it's own customers, and even farmers that never used their seed. If a single seed blows over from another field and sprouts in your field, this company can (and does) sue the farmer down to his toenail lint. Then turns around and transfers the property to it's own farming conglomerate. Doesn't matter if they win, because in the long run that farmer they sued will likely end up bankrupt from the tort.
Same thing is going on with chicken and hogs. You can't raise your own stock anymore, you have to buy it from the packers, buy the feed they demand from distributors they specify, then once mature, sell it to only the packer that you bought the livestock from, all at prices the conglomerate sets.
If a farmer or rancher doesn't want to work that way, they are left with finding their own stock in a market that is all but dried up, and hope to sell on the spot export market because they won't be able to sell to national chains in the US.
Now, let's turn to our President Elect - will he do something about these inequalities? Doubtful. While he doesn't engage in agribusiness himself, I seriously doubt a serial bankrupter and contract violator will welcome any sort of increased oversight or reform.
I'd like to be wrong on that though.
Now, I'm a person given to sudden outburst. When I drop something heavy on my foot, or knock over something, I'll normally shout "F*ck me!".
I suspect that would be problematical in a voice activated environment and wound not lead to matrimonial harmony.
.
Since I pay my ISV for transit, yes, I expect them to actually provide the service I'm (over) paying them for. This is frequently the logical fallacy employed by telecoms when they describe people that use their transit as "data hogs not paying their fair share".
Operational costs of a network like a cable or telephone system are quite low. The real cost is in the network establishment, which is paid for by the builders of the neighborhood the home is built in, then given to the ISV (cable or telephone) once the area is nearing completion. The same is true for streets, side walks, power, water, gas, and sewers.
I am, of course, leaving out provisioning of content because for Internet, I don't need (or actually want) content from the cable or telephone company.
Maybe if the election had gone the other way the FCC might have been able to make them play nice for a time, but eventually they would find a way around any regulation.
Yes, exactly. The only way to beat the telecoms into providing an honest service at a price point that isn't usurious is to eliminate the monopoly rents and barriers to entry granted to them by law.
ISVs are already shutting down ports between customers. Also billing for every byte into or out of the router - including DDoS traffic.
TWC blocked ports above 1024 between their regional lans. If you were in Chicago, you could hit say port 4800 in Dallas. But if you were in Houston, you couldn't hit 4800 in Austin, but Chicago was just fine.
Spectrum bought out TWC and I don't have nearly the trouble any more, but that's not saying service prices aren't going up, because - Lookie there! - they are. I will say that packet loss is down by a large factor after the takeover.
I wonder, back in the dark ages of no cell phones, how police ever managed to solve any crimes. I mean, wow. Imagine not having something as useful as a personal snitch that we call a cell phone.
I've said it many times, and I'll go on saying it - I would not allow a cell phone on my property if I didn't have to have one for employment.
A cell phone is for my convenience - yet most frequently it is used to interrupt me, inconvenience me, and generally make my life a pain in the neck. And on top of which, it gives LEO information they can misinterpret to use against me. Someone murdered? Why, my phone was recorded as being within a half a block of the crime scene - I *must* be guilty. Never mind it's on the way to work, or doctor, or whatever. Cell phone evidence is almost never exculpatory, it's almost always used (or misused) to convict.
All one need do to get a chill up their spine is spend half an hour with LEO tools and a cell phone to understand just how bad it really is. That, or just read.
I'm using a Raspberry Pi and some modified software located here:
https://murphy101blog.wordpres...
Would this be the same intelligence folks that told us during the cold war that the USSR had better and more thermonuclear bombs than the US did?
The CRTC is an even more toothless cur than the FCC is in the US. Nothing will change except the artful choreography with which the telecoms will dance out of the way of doing anything substantive. This is what they pay the politicians (in Canada and the US) to do for them, and they are getting their money's worth from the spend.
For various reasons, I must maintain a POTS line. It rings incessantly with scammers, spammers, politicians (but I repeat myself), and bill collectors looking for someone I don't know but has the same last name.
Simple solution: A DTMF circuit and a PIN, and turn off the ringer. Someone calls in, gets a message "Please enter the extension you are calling", and if they don't enter the correct pin, it hangs up the call. If they enter the correct pin, then the Pi fires a buzzer and the answering machine. Whitelisted numbers go to the Answering machine direct. If I'm home, I'll pick up.
Lately, Rachel from Card Services and the NRA are calling my cell phone.
Yes, all numbers are on the DNC list. No, it just seems to focus their attention.
Settlement: -95.00
Copying fee: 25.00
Filing fee: 34.35
paralegal recovery: $85.00
attorney recovery; $450.00
Government recovery fee: $104.00
Balance Due immediately $505.35
Remit within 2 days.
If anyone would notice that their data from Linked In leaked. I mean, LinkedIn is such a data mining fanatic, it'd be hard to tell the difference between their normal spamming and spyware and someone else using that same data.
Most EC votes are bound, EG: They must vote the way they are told.
That said, those that voted for President Elect Trump knew exactly what they were voting for - and that's what they want. While I question the wisdom of their vote, I don't question they were simply uninformed of the consequences. My only worry is that Mr. Trump will turn out exactly as bad, or worse, than I expect. Just as Mr. Trump is president of the whole country, so am I bound to the consequences of the votes of those I vehemently disagree with. My only little ray of hope is that I'm mistaken, and those I disagree with were right.
But I don't think that's going to be the case.
This should be obvious.
A key is what you have, but a passcode or combination is what you know.
You might HAVE a kilo of cocaine. Anyone can simply see that and the law allows for evidence to be seized if it's in plain sight or with a warrant.
You KNOW what crime you might have committed, which is why you can't be compelled to testify against yourself.
Having a key seized is very different than requiring you to divulge what you know.
Obviously.
Actually, not only can one have this both ways (somewhat), it's likely the correct thought. I'll explain: The invasive probing into the average American's lives are much deeper than most believe, and there is no real value for this vis-a-vi security and protection from terrorism. From the standpoint of stopping this illegal (well, we think it's illegal, we really don't know because they won't publish the laws they are using to authorize it, and the courts refuse to grant standing to challenge the laws) breach of privacy. So, on that head, yes, the NSA, CIA, FBI, CBP, ICE, marshals, and DEA at least need to be either reigned in or abolished, and likely more.
From the standpoint of actually stopping terrorists, it's not such a good thing. Luckly, there aren't many terrorist operating in the US. How do we know that? Because do you think for one red hot second they wouldn't be crowing from the rooftops about "how we protected you from these evil doers" if they had anything more than plots they make up and entrap mentally ill people into? Of course not.
As for public sector pay, those same people that voted for President Elect Trump are, for the most part, the very same people that scream about "fat cat paychecks" for useless and lazy drones . I know. I used to work in the public sector. I've been called a fat pig with both trotters in the trough, stupid, and worse, been spit on and otherwise assulted. Why on earth would I not quit and take 120%, 250%, 400% pay raise or more to work in the private sector? None the less, I stuck it out for many years because I felt I should do something for my fellow citizens. In the end, I had to capitulate and get more money, more responsive leadership, and less political football craziness. My gain is your loss.
Why the NSA feels that a conversation from an air craft is any more worthy of "security" attention than one from somewhere else. Besides, it will pass through a ground station anyway, so why bother with special attention, cost, and required resources.
As much eavesdropping going on in the name of "security" does little for "terrorism" anyway. It's used far more commonly in drug and financial cases to replace actually doing their job. At best it's used to prove a case; at worst, it's used to see if there's a case to be made.
I have stated in the past what an utter disaster Java and Flash are, and have been pounded for my opinion. So be it.
What strikes me is that Facebook is asking the very people that believe the fake news to point out it's fake news.
Doesn't seem very prone to accuracy to me.
Water is wet and fire burns.
What I find amusing is the number of people that just go bonkers over their cell phones. That damn thing is nothing but an opportunity for LEO to bag you. It is not your friend. It will never be a source of exculpatory evidence. It only will be used against you and will never, not ever, show innocence. (OK, -almost- never)
Folks say "Oh, I'm not worried, I'm not a criminal".
Er, ever see the number of times a day the average American commits a crime? You may not think you are a criminal, but so many things are illegal that most do actually commit some sort of crime every day. It's just a matter of if LEO wants to enforce the law against -you- for whatever reason takes their fancy.
I'm not sure I agree with you completely. I agree that extremism is more easily found, I'm not sure if that's because it's more popular or if it's simply because more individuals are willing to express it.
I do believe that both the right and the left engage in logical facilities (you should pardon the pun) left and right. A few examples:
Death penalty and abortion
Reducing taxes and budgets passed
Objecting to "nanny state" (vis a vi public support) by calling it racism, bemoaning food assistance while cutting access to birth control (Family Planning funding)
Loss of constitutional freedoms vs. gun legislation vs. disenfranchisement
Effectively limiting consumer protections (by Strengthening monopolies) while claiming to be pro-consumer
Preventing private right of action and forcing consumers to use binding arbitration (Might as well not even bother, you're not going to win even if you are right)
and on and on and on. I think the average US person has simply either gone nuckin' futz or they are lied to so completely and pervasively as to have no worthwhile information to base a rational decision on. It's so bad that I don't even bother talking to people anymore (haven't for the last 20 years). It's so bad that I am seriously limiting even discussion in fora such as here. Worse, it's no better in other countries, and even worse in some.
I blame it on the commercialization of journalism, actions by special interests, and the lack of critical thinking skills being taught in public (and many private) education. The only answer I've found so far is to simply smile, nod, and back slowly away from the more vitriolic of them, and to not bother with media news outlets anymore.
NPR, PBS, BBC and a few others are attempting to get people talking to each other. So far, I've witnessed this devolve into brutal beatings twice. Yeah. Like I'm going to go "have a reasonable discussion with someone I don't agree with".
A few years ago I went through TSA with my laptop. Naturally they wanted to search it. No problem. I thought.
I'd forgotten that at the time, my documents directory auto synced whenever I logged into my network at home. At the time, I was writing a fiction story.
All kinds of excitement occurred.
Now I keep all my stuff in the cloud outside of "five eyes" treaty partners and any time I think I might have an "interaction" with LEO, I mercine wipe my drive and install fresh. I still get harassed because obviously I "must be a terrorist" because I don't use windows. Solution; Small windows boot partition by default and some random porn files. (If they don't find anything, they just keep looking. So I give them a little something obvious to keep them off my back.)
When did we start being more afraid of our own government than of terrorist? The world has gone crazy except for you and me, I'm slowly slipping away and I was never too sure about you.
" who interpret the Constitution exactly as it's written"
Might be good for the days of sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, slavery and no voting by women. Not too in touch with today. This is why the founders insisted that the constitution be capable of change in the first place.
Why is it when a judge finds something the right doesn't like, they are "activist" and "interpreting the constitution they way they wish it was" and when they like how the judge rules they are a "wise jurist."?
He's elected president. Not dictator. He doesn't have the power to "scrub the web."
Hum um. And he doesn't have the power to affect stock prices either.
It is true - directly has does not have that power. However, a simple observation "Gee, that's a nice business you have there. It would be a shame to have the FBI start investigating, the IRS poke around, and the SEC and FTC to look at every little thing you did and do..." is quite effective in securing cooperation on matters not directly within the delineated powers of any politician. This is one of many factors which seems to have escaped - or been ignored as unimportant - the notice of those that elected Mr. Trump.
Because President Elect Trump is a bastion of careful thought, absolute veracity, and considered policy I'm sure this will never, not ever, be an issue.
The H1B visa program is an excellent choice as a bell weather of what a Trump administration can be expected to do for the average person. Around tax time next year (April 15th) is about 90 days in office. Set a reminder folks. "April 15th. Look around and see what the H1B visa abuse situation is. TRUMP Promise."
Will he keep it or will he break it? I don't know. I have my thoughts but I will have them settled one way or the other by May.