Except much like the Soviet Union or China, that will gut incentives to do interesting/useful work.
On the contrary, a UBI would allow people the freedom to pursue things that are interesting to them. Want to write a novel, learn how to play an instrument, take up art, or simply spend your free time hiking in nature; all of these are possibly to do on a UBI without forcing yourself to a life of poverty. If you can work 20 hours a week to make enough to live off of when combined with UBI, that leaves you with 148 hours to devote to actually living your life.
Those still interested in certain careers will still do so: people who want to teach will still teach, people who enjoy discovery and experimenting will still practice science, people who want to become rich doctors or lawyers will still become rich doctors or lawyers, people who have a love of learning will have plenty of time to continue learning. When people are able to better themselves society as a whole benefits.
Someone has to pay for it, and inevitably those who do work (the wealthy) will be taxed to pay for those who don't work (those who receive UBI).
That's funny. You think the wealthy work. Sure, a lot of them do (and bust their ass doing it), but a lot more simply scrape money off the top. Venture capitalists, HFT, living off dividends or trust funds that were inherited, owning real estate, other rent-seeking activities, etc. Most wealthy people don't become or remain wealthy off their work, they do it off of the work of others. America has this strange notion that anyone with money is good, or smart, or hard working. When usually they have money because they, or their family, already had money. You know the old saying "you have to spend money to make money"? It's not true. It's more accurate to say you have to have money to make money.
Story explaining how Zuckerberg will never have to pay taxes again. Also include a sentence about Buffett never paying taxes on his $50 billion.
Funny how those super rich who don't pay taxes are always the first to say the middle class need to be paying more.
To be fair (or cynical), Buffett has repeatedly said it is ridiculous that he pays less in taxes than his secretary and that the tax laws should be changed, but until they are it is in his best interest and prudent to use the existing law to reduce his tax burden as much as possible.
Don't we have welfare in this country?....Now we have all kinds of welfare programs that give away billions and billions and are racking up Federal debt in the Trillions each year.... What more do you think we should do? You can only hand out so much money before it becomes meaningless and we all go bankrupt and EVRYBODY becomes poor...See Venezuela for an example of where this kind of thinking leads you.
UBI is intended to replace all forms of welfare and safety nets. Of course, the reality is we will still have plenty of people blow all their money on cars, clothes, gambling, or drugs and not have anything left over for housing, food, or healthcare. So we would have to either not care about people startving in the streets but with the latest cellphone, still provide some sort of safety net, or rely on (and probably help fund) non-profits to take up the slack. UBI is a great idea and I am all for it (I would certainly take advantage of it myself), but it would require a significant culture shift to ever really be practicable.
He should have finished school. That way he might have taken a basic economics class, which would have taught him that economies of scale adjust out all imposed constants. You can, for example, add X to everyone's income, and the price of everything will simply rise to adjust out X, returning the system to peak efficiency. This will make what money low income earners do make even less valuable, increasing poverty and shrinking the middle class.
Isn't that why most proponents of UBI (beyond the proof of concept test cases) include taxes that reduce the eventual take-home of the UBI the more money you make? So that a person working in a job making minimum wage might get to keep most of their UBI, but someone making $75000 year effectively gets taxed so that they receive no net UBI. The idea behind UBI seems that instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week, 2 people can work 20 hours a week without seeing a drop in income, providing jobs for more people and contributing to a better quality of life. People that want to not work and scrape by on $15-20k a year can do that, people who want to work part time for $30k a year can do that, and the workaholics who want to work 100 hours a week for 6 figure salaries can still do that.
Deniers should have their lives disrupted. They should not find it easy to conduct business or hold rallies as long as they publicly espouse their denier beliefs.
At least when they do you know what their beliefs are. Drive them underground and into their own private echo chamber, and their beliefs will fester and evolve. Rhetoric could turn into action. Allow them out into the open and you can challenge those beliefs, and keep them from developing into something even more dangerous.
These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.
I agree with you, but not because of the slippery slope argument. To most rational people Holocaust denial is reprehensible and the evidence of the Holocaust in undeniable. But for the small subset of people that are likely to believe in denialism, censoring it might actually make them want to search out denialism even more. In their mind, the fact that the government is trying to stamp it out and suppress it adds legitimacy to the "theory", because why would they try to hide it if it weren't true or if they weren't threatened by it? Of course, this applies mostly to the followers of denialism, not those purporting it for political gain and who most likely know it's a crock of shit. Crazy ideas like this have to be out in the open where they can be challenged and refuted. Sure, you most likely aren't going to sway very many people that believe in those crazy ideas, but if you push those ideas into the shadows then it allows the believers to stay in their own bubble, feed off each other, and make the problem even worse.
Russia has most likely been trying to influence our elections [...] since the 50s, just as we have theirs
Russia had elections in the 50s?
That's what happens when you post on Slashdot first thing in the morning. But ever since WWII the US has always been trying to interfere with Russian/USSR internal politics. And they've done the same with us.
Heck, I'm willing to believe that some voting machines are secure. However, my bet would be that secure voting machines are both expensive and not very widely used.
The secure machines are reserved for safely gerrymandered districts.
"Russians" didn't hack the voting machines (I don't know for sure, mind you, but it's pretty implausible). *If* they did anything (and this is far more plausible), then it was messing with the voter's brains, aka "social engineering", aka FUD, aka PsyOps.
Is there anyone credible that has actually been arguing the Russians physically hacked the elections? The media and Democrats have all been arguing that it wasn't physical hacking but social engineering. It's the (minority of) Republicans that keep keep trying to push for the standard definition of hacking, since, you know, there's no evidence for that (because Russia didn't do that). Plenty of well-respected Republicans are on the side of the Democrats, that there seems to be some pretty decent evidence pointing to successful Russian influence in the election, and given the hubbub around the Trump campaign's ties and communication with Russia raises some serious concerns.
To be fair though, Russia has most likely been trying to influence our elections (and the elections of countless other state) since the 50s, just as we have theirs (and others). This is just the first time that their efforts seem to, at least visually, have had an impact. That, plus the fact that our president is a political neophyte who thinks running a country is no different than running a company-not realizing that you can't do backroom deals, ask for loyalty pledges,or try to ask people to drop/deny investigations-means that controversies that would have died and faded away with another politician at the head have instead flourished. To make matters worse, Trump has surrounded himself with people that, while they might be good (or at least lucky) with business, also have no idea how to run a country, and continue to allow Trump to run the country like a business. This is manifested by the inability of the administration to put out a coherent message on anything, and that the few people that might actually have a decent idea of what they are doing are constantly undercut by Trump himself who comes out a few hours later and completely destroys the narrative they had been putting out.
Lets see how the standard issue "But he has Aspergers and didn't realise the consequence of his actions your honour" excuse will fly over there. Somehow I suspect their life will be a long way from being pleasent in the very near future especially if the oligarch who owns the bank has some friends in the judicial system who owe him a favour.
Depends who they stole from. If they stole from someone rich and connected they are screwed. If they stole from regular people, well, they might just get offered a job. I'm sure the FSB is always looking for people to add to it's clandestine hacker army.
I had this conversation with my wife last night. She watches (nowhere near as much as she used to though) several Youtube families. One in particular is a Mormon family with about 5 kids; the father started making the videos years ago and ended up starting a youtube/video production company that got bought out by Disney. So they have literally made millions because of Youtube. In any case, they always projected being the perfect, happy (not so) little family in all of their videos. But it just came out that the father has been fooling around with cam girls and is an alcoholic.
It's a perfect example of why people need to teach children not to put so much stock into social media: all you ever see are the good times, and the personas that people want you to see. It gives children the impression that if their life isn't one exciting or fun event after another then they are missing out or something is wrong with them, which fuels depression. It makes them feel like everyone else is having fun all the time, and gives them unrealistic outlooks on what life is supposed to be like. And this is only part of the problem. Add in the ability of social media to allow bullying to follow children home from school and it's no wonder kids these days have so many issues. Parents really need to be parents and make their kids cut back on the social media. It would all their lives so much easier.
The ability to hack a router that Trump's unsecured vintage Android phone might try to connect to when he has his next 6am Twitter tantrum.
Or just turn on the microphone in the phone of the person sitting at the table next to him while he is discussing responses to North Korean missile launches with the Japanese PM in the middle of a dining room patio surrounded by people without security clearances eating dinner.
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
So compromise the system when he's not there, have it gather data while he is there, then pick up said data after he leaves. Intelligence forces have been doing this for years, as if a sensitive area is regularly swept for actively transmitting bugs/devices, it can be easier and more effective to gain physical access, plant a passive device, and then pick up the device later than to try and monitor a transmitting device in real time. You lose out on immediately time-sensitive intelligence this way, but you can still end up with useful information.
It is a PUBLIC GOLF RESORT. It is not a secure facility. Why would you assume anything? "Strictly controlled access" to a public resort???
"Obviously it's a problem that Trump talks about policy and sensitive topics in the open around members of the public"
Gee. That might be a problem, don't you think?
Mar a Lago is a private resort, not public. Do you really think they would just let you or I walk in and take a dip in the pool? (Also, and I am sure it's not at all related to Trump getting elected, but the resort did just up their yearly membership fee from $100k to $400k). So of course they already restrict access. And when Trump is there the Secret Service would lock it down even more. For the record I think the only reasons Trump goes there is because it bumps up the profile and therefore demand/price of the resort (making him more money) and that Camp David looks "too poor" for him. I mean, they don't have one thing covered in gold: it's certainly no place for a President to spend his time, especially when he is already having to slum it at the White House.
Under the assumption that the very first thing government officials do is take their sensitive devices and connect it to a public WiFi hotspot?
He's most likely not connecting to a public hotspot (I hope is at least smart enough/listens to his advisors enough not to do that). But when you are having policy discussions at a table on the patio of the club restaurant surrounded by club guests, you don't need Trump connected to the public wifi. Anyone around him can become a potential attack vector.
"then all of a sudden stuff like open wifi and hackable printers and servers starts to matter a lot more"
Why? Are they discussing stuff that is sensitive? Why are they doing that in a non-secure environment? There could be audio bugs planted. How does wireless printers without passwords make it any worse?
Unsecure networks makes it easier. To plant bugs requires physical access to the facilities, and you can guarantee that, especially when Trump is there, only members and staff (both of whom are likely at this point to have been vetted, if not outright monitored) by the Secret Service. Even when he is not there physical access is likely strictly controlled and the facility is swept regularly for surveillance devices. And if an agent of any foreign government were caught trying to bug Mar a Lago that would be a huge international incident. By having unsecure networks, someone can just sit a couple hundred yards offshore in public waters, hack into the network, and compromise systems that don't even have to be monitored in real time; the data could be retrieved later.
A simple analogy is that you are basically claiming that since the door is locked and guarded there is no need to lock the second floor window. When you secure something you secure all possible avenues that could allow for breaching that security. Even if Trump uses a secure network while he is there, someone else's device could be compromised if they are on an insecure network. Obviously it's a problem that Trump talks about policy and sensitive topics in the open around members of the public, but there is no indication that he would ever actually listen to advice and stop doing it. So you need as much protection as you can.
and read the sign that says "This month's WiFi Password is GOLF". It's a country club. They assume you belong there, unless you don't look like you belong there. What is the point of securing a network that has a publicly available password?
The point is probably that Trump is at Mar a Lago at least once a month and has already been reported having policy discussions out in the open in public. If someone were to get into the network and compromise a few machines to use as listening or recording devices, they might find something out a good 6 hours before Trump tweets it. That's a significant security risk.
Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.
But given the fact that China and India are still developing, when taken into account with the population they have China and India are the best places to start. It's much easier to focus on clean energy and pollution reduction while industries and economies are growing. Once the economy is established then there is considerable incentive for key players within the economy to maintain the status quo. For the ROI, both in terms of political capital/effort and straight up monetary terms, you will get more results from reforms in China and India than you will in the US. Especially given the current corporatist influence in American politics.
* Expense (because retrofits on existing planes isn't just "EXPENSIVE!!!", it's "FUCKING EXPENSIVE!!!"
* Weight savings. A reinforced door and manual/ratcheted lock bar could easily add another 5-800 lbs to a plane. That's EASILY 3-5 passenger fares.
Save money vs save the crew's life? Fuck the crew! SAVE THE MONEY!
Aircraft crews are trained to repel attackers, quite a few in the US are armed now with the FFDO program, there are simple methods beyond a lock that can slow down any attempt to open the cockpit door by force (for example on MD-80 type aircraft, simply putting down the jumpseat would slow anyone down), and as a last resort they literally have a weapon on hand (the crash ax). Also, especially in the US, there is a very good chance that at least one of the cockpit crew is former military and has had self defense training. You're partially right in that it is about saving money, but it's saving money because there are more cost effective ways of protecting the cockpit and cockpit crews.
The bigger question is why they have set codes at all. There are only a set number of people on each flight who might need to access the cockpit. They should really just have the pilots set a code before anybody else boards the plane, and have the relevant people notified of the code before the flight. Even better if the code is random generated by a computer.
The Germanwings crash is a good example of this. With codes that can be changed from inside the cockpit, once someone has access they can deny access to anyone else. Also, you could have crew (both cockpit and cabin crew) operate 3 different aircraft in a day depending on their schedule, or at elast operate with different crews. If there is an emergency and you need to access the cockpit (maybe a pilot has a medical emergency and the other pilot has to handle actually flying the plane and contacting ATC so a flight attendant needs to assist the pilot with the medical issue) it is a lot easier to remember one standard password than what the password happens to be for this leg of your shift.
Slashdot Mirror
Except much like the Soviet Union or China, that will gut incentives to do interesting/useful work.
On the contrary, a UBI would allow people the freedom to pursue things that are interesting to them. Want to write a novel, learn how to play an instrument, take up art, or simply spend your free time hiking in nature; all of these are possibly to do on a UBI without forcing yourself to a life of poverty. If you can work 20 hours a week to make enough to live off of when combined with UBI, that leaves you with 148 hours to devote to actually living your life.
Those still interested in certain careers will still do so: people who want to teach will still teach, people who enjoy discovery and experimenting will still practice science, people who want to become rich doctors or lawyers will still become rich doctors or lawyers, people who have a love of learning will have plenty of time to continue learning. When people are able to better themselves society as a whole benefits.
Someone has to pay for it, and inevitably those who do work (the wealthy) will be taxed to pay for those who don't work (those who receive UBI).
That's funny. You think the wealthy work. Sure, a lot of them do (and bust their ass doing it), but a lot more simply scrape money off the top. Venture capitalists, HFT, living off dividends or trust funds that were inherited, owning real estate, other rent-seeking activities, etc. Most wealthy people don't become or remain wealthy off their work, they do it off of the work of others. America has this strange notion that anyone with money is good, or smart, or hard working. When usually they have money because they, or their family, already had money. You know the old saying "you have to spend money to make money"? It's not true. It's more accurate to say you have to have money to make money.
Story explaining how Zuckerberg will never have to pay taxes again. Also include a sentence about Buffett never paying taxes on his $50 billion.
Funny how those super rich who don't pay taxes are always the first to say the middle class need to be paying more.
To be fair (or cynical), Buffett has repeatedly said it is ridiculous that he pays less in taxes than his secretary and that the tax laws should be changed, but until they are it is in his best interest and prudent to use the existing law to reduce his tax burden as much as possible.
Don't we have welfare in this country?....Now we have all kinds of welfare programs that give away billions and billions and are racking up Federal debt in the Trillions each year.... What more do you think we should do? You can only hand out so much money before it becomes meaningless and we all go bankrupt and EVRYBODY becomes poor...See Venezuela for an example of where this kind of thinking leads you.
UBI is intended to replace all forms of welfare and safety nets. Of course, the reality is we will still have plenty of people blow all their money on cars, clothes, gambling, or drugs and not have anything left over for housing, food, or healthcare. So we would have to either not care about people startving in the streets but with the latest cellphone, still provide some sort of safety net, or rely on (and probably help fund) non-profits to take up the slack. UBI is a great idea and I am all for it (I would certainly take advantage of it myself), but it would require a significant culture shift to ever really be practicable.
He should have finished school. That way he might have taken a basic economics class, which would have taught him that economies of scale adjust out all imposed constants. You can, for example, add X to everyone's income, and the price of everything will simply rise to adjust out X, returning the system to peak efficiency. This will make what money low income earners do make even less valuable, increasing poverty and shrinking the middle class.
Isn't that why most proponents of UBI (beyond the proof of concept test cases) include taxes that reduce the eventual take-home of the UBI the more money you make? So that a person working in a job making minimum wage might get to keep most of their UBI, but someone making $75000 year effectively gets taxed so that they receive no net UBI. The idea behind UBI seems that instead of 1 person working 40 hours a week, 2 people can work 20 hours a week without seeing a drop in income, providing jobs for more people and contributing to a better quality of life. People that want to not work and scrape by on $15-20k a year can do that, people who want to work part time for $30k a year can do that, and the workaholics who want to work 100 hours a week for 6 figure salaries can still do that.
Deniers should have their lives disrupted. They should not find it easy to conduct business or hold rallies as long as they publicly espouse their denier beliefs.
At least when they do you know what their beliefs are. Drive them underground and into their own private echo chamber, and their beliefs will fester and evolve. Rhetoric could turn into action. Allow them out into the open and you can challenge those beliefs, and keep them from developing into something even more dangerous.
These laws are not a good thing. Once you censor one thing it becomes easier to censor other things. And not everyone agrees with what is bad or unacceptable speech. I'm happy that Facebook isn't complying with these laws any more than it absolutely needs to. My grandmother went through Auschwitz and had a number on her arm. There are few things I find more despicable than Holocaust denial, and it is especially because the speech is so horrific that it must be protected. It isn't impressive to support free speech when it is speech you agree with or only mildly disagree with.
I agree with you, but not because of the slippery slope argument. To most rational people Holocaust denial is reprehensible and the evidence of the Holocaust in undeniable. But for the small subset of people that are likely to believe in denialism, censoring it might actually make them want to search out denialism even more. In their mind, the fact that the government is trying to stamp it out and suppress it adds legitimacy to the "theory", because why would they try to hide it if it weren't true or if they weren't threatened by it? Of course, this applies mostly to the followers of denialism, not those purporting it for political gain and who most likely know it's a crock of shit. Crazy ideas like this have to be out in the open where they can be challenged and refuted. Sure, you most likely aren't going to sway very many people that believe in those crazy ideas, but if you push those ideas into the shadows then it allows the believers to stay in their own bubble, feed off each other, and make the problem even worse.
They'd probably just point you over to books by Freud
Russia has most likely been trying to influence our elections [...] since the 50s, just as we have theirs
Russia had elections in the 50s?
That's what happens when you post on Slashdot first thing in the morning. But ever since WWII the US has always been trying to interfere with Russian/USSR internal politics. And they've done the same with us.
Heck, I'm willing to believe that some voting machines are secure. However, my bet would be that secure voting machines are both expensive and not very widely used.
The secure machines are reserved for safely gerrymandered districts.
"Russians" didn't hack the voting machines (I don't know for sure, mind you, but it's pretty implausible). *If* they did anything (and this is far more plausible), then it was messing with the voter's brains, aka "social engineering", aka FUD, aka PsyOps.
Is there anyone credible that has actually been arguing the Russians physically hacked the elections? The media and Democrats have all been arguing that it wasn't physical hacking but social engineering. It's the (minority of) Republicans that keep keep trying to push for the standard definition of hacking, since, you know, there's no evidence for that (because Russia didn't do that). Plenty of well-respected Republicans are on the side of the Democrats, that there seems to be some pretty decent evidence pointing to successful Russian influence in the election, and given the hubbub around the Trump campaign's ties and communication with Russia raises some serious concerns.
To be fair though, Russia has most likely been trying to influence our elections (and the elections of countless other state) since the 50s, just as we have theirs (and others). This is just the first time that their efforts seem to, at least visually, have had an impact. That, plus the fact that our president is a political neophyte who thinks running a country is no different than running a company-not realizing that you can't do backroom deals, ask for loyalty pledges,or try to ask people to drop/deny investigations-means that controversies that would have died and faded away with another politician at the head have instead flourished. To make matters worse, Trump has surrounded himself with people that, while they might be good (or at least lucky) with business, also have no idea how to run a country, and continue to allow Trump to run the country like a business. This is manifested by the inability of the administration to put out a coherent message on anything, and that the few people that might actually have a decent idea of what they are doing are constantly undercut by Trump himself who comes out a few hours later and completely destroys the narrative they had been putting out.
Depends on how strong your arm is
Lets see how the standard issue "But he has Aspergers and didn't realise the consequence of his actions your honour" excuse will fly over there. Somehow I suspect their life will be a long way from being pleasent in the very near future especially if the oligarch who owns the bank has some friends in the judicial system who owe him a favour.
Depends who they stole from. If they stole from someone rich and connected they are screwed. If they stole from regular people, well, they might just get offered a job. I'm sure the FSB is always looking for people to add to it's clandestine hacker army.
I had this conversation with my wife last night. She watches (nowhere near as much as she used to though) several Youtube families. One in particular is a Mormon family with about 5 kids; the father started making the videos years ago and ended up starting a youtube/video production company that got bought out by Disney. So they have literally made millions because of Youtube. In any case, they always projected being the perfect, happy (not so) little family in all of their videos. But it just came out that the father has been fooling around with cam girls and is an alcoholic.
It's a perfect example of why people need to teach children not to put so much stock into social media: all you ever see are the good times, and the personas that people want you to see. It gives children the impression that if their life isn't one exciting or fun event after another then they are missing out or something is wrong with them, which fuels depression. It makes them feel like everyone else is having fun all the time, and gives them unrealistic outlooks on what life is supposed to be like. And this is only part of the problem. Add in the ability of social media to allow bullying to follow children home from school and it's no wonder kids these days have so many issues. Parents really need to be parents and make their kids cut back on the social media. It would all their lives so much easier.
The ability to hack a router that Trump's unsecured vintage Android phone might try to connect to when he has his next 6am Twitter tantrum.
Or just turn on the microphone in the phone of the person sitting at the table next to him while he is discussing responses to North Korean missile launches with the Japanese PM in the middle of a dining room patio surrounded by people without security clearances eating dinner.
I have a feeling you will be intercepted and detained if you try this during a Trump visit.
The exclusion zone for boats, cars and aircraft is pretty invasive and I believe their choice of locations would be off limits.
So compromise the system when he's not there, have it gather data while he is there, then pick up said data after he leaves. Intelligence forces have been doing this for years, as if a sensitive area is regularly swept for actively transmitting bugs/devices, it can be easier and more effective to gain physical access, plant a passive device, and then pick up the device later than to try and monitor a transmitting device in real time. You lose out on immediately time-sensitive intelligence this way, but you can still end up with useful information.
It is a PUBLIC GOLF RESORT. It is not a secure facility. Why would you assume anything? "Strictly controlled access" to a public resort??? "Obviously it's a problem that Trump talks about policy and sensitive topics in the open around members of the public" Gee. That might be a problem, don't you think?
Mar a Lago is a private resort, not public. Do you really think they would just let you or I walk in and take a dip in the pool? (Also, and I am sure it's not at all related to Trump getting elected, but the resort did just up their yearly membership fee from $100k to $400k). So of course they already restrict access. And when Trump is there the Secret Service would lock it down even more. For the record I think the only reasons Trump goes there is because it bumps up the profile and therefore demand/price of the resort (making him more money) and that Camp David looks "too poor" for him. I mean, they don't have one thing covered in gold: it's certainly no place for a President to spend his time, especially when he is already having to slum it at the White House.
Under the assumption that the very first thing government officials do is take their sensitive devices and connect it to a public WiFi hotspot?
He's most likely not connecting to a public hotspot (I hope is at least smart enough/listens to his advisors enough not to do that). But when you are having policy discussions at a table on the patio of the club restaurant surrounded by club guests, you don't need Trump connected to the public wifi. Anyone around him can become a potential attack vector.
"then all of a sudden stuff like open wifi and hackable printers and servers starts to matter a lot more" Why? Are they discussing stuff that is sensitive? Why are they doing that in a non-secure environment? There could be audio bugs planted. How does wireless printers without passwords make it any worse?
Unsecure networks makes it easier. To plant bugs requires physical access to the facilities, and you can guarantee that, especially when Trump is there, only members and staff (both of whom are likely at this point to have been vetted, if not outright monitored) by the Secret Service. Even when he is not there physical access is likely strictly controlled and the facility is swept regularly for surveillance devices. And if an agent of any foreign government were caught trying to bug Mar a Lago that would be a huge international incident. By having unsecure networks, someone can just sit a couple hundred yards offshore in public waters, hack into the network, and compromise systems that don't even have to be monitored in real time; the data could be retrieved later.
A simple analogy is that you are basically claiming that since the door is locked and guarded there is no need to lock the second floor window. When you secure something you secure all possible avenues that could allow for breaching that security. Even if Trump uses a secure network while he is there, someone else's device could be compromised if they are on an insecure network. Obviously it's a problem that Trump talks about policy and sensitive topics in the open around members of the public, but there is no indication that he would ever actually listen to advice and stop doing it. So you need as much protection as you can.
and read the sign that says "This month's WiFi Password is GOLF". It's a country club. They assume you belong there, unless you don't look like you belong there. What is the point of securing a network that has a publicly available password?
The point is probably that Trump is at Mar a Lago at least once a month and has already been reported having policy discussions out in the open in public. If someone were to get into the network and compromise a few machines to use as listening or recording devices, they might find something out a good 6 hours before Trump tweets it. That's a significant security risk.
Trump just wants to make sure that everyone can see we have the best cyber.
Don't look at it as population numbers alone, but as energy used and pollution produced per person. The U.S.A. is a problem.
But given the fact that China and India are still developing, when taken into account with the population they have China and India are the best places to start. It's much easier to focus on clean energy and pollution reduction while industries and economies are growing. Once the economy is established then there is considerable incentive for key players within the economy to maintain the status quo. For the ROI, both in terms of political capital/effort and straight up monetary terms, you will get more results from reforms in China and India than you will in the US. Especially given the current corporatist influence in American politics.
That and manual deadlocks on the inside.
The reasons airlines don't want to put them in?
* Expense (because retrofits on existing planes isn't just "EXPENSIVE!!!", it's "FUCKING EXPENSIVE!!!" * Weight savings. A reinforced door and manual/ratcheted lock bar could easily add another 5-800 lbs to a plane. That's EASILY 3-5 passenger fares.
Save money vs save the crew's life? Fuck the crew! SAVE THE MONEY!
Aircraft crews are trained to repel attackers, quite a few in the US are armed now with the FFDO program, there are simple methods beyond a lock that can slow down any attempt to open the cockpit door by force (for example on MD-80 type aircraft, simply putting down the jumpseat would slow anyone down), and as a last resort they literally have a weapon on hand (the crash ax). Also, especially in the US, there is a very good chance that at least one of the cockpit crew is former military and has had self defense training. You're partially right in that it is about saving money, but it's saving money because there are more cost effective ways of protecting the cockpit and cockpit crews.
The bigger question is why they have set codes at all. There are only a set number of people on each flight who might need to access the cockpit. They should really just have the pilots set a code before anybody else boards the plane, and have the relevant people notified of the code before the flight. Even better if the code is random generated by a computer.
The Germanwings crash is a good example of this. With codes that can be changed from inside the cockpit, once someone has access they can deny access to anyone else. Also, you could have crew (both cockpit and cabin crew) operate 3 different aircraft in a day depending on their schedule, or at elast operate with different crews. If there is an emergency and you need to access the cockpit (maybe a pilot has a medical emergency and the other pilot has to handle actually flying the plane and contacting ATC so a flight attendant needs to assist the pilot with the medical issue) it is a lot easier to remember one standard password than what the password happens to be for this leg of your shift.
How is this not different than putting a fake gun in your carry on to "test" security?
Gizmodo actually got caught?