"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way
Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.
No, you are operating under the myth that we have the time to wait for renewables like solar and wind. We don't, decades of science and engineering are ahead of us. Even then the ability to manufacture sufficient battery (or alternative) storage is unknown. We need nuclear as a bridge. The cost of nuclear is not an issue since we don't have the time. We need to take coal offline immediately. However the shift to renewables combined with a shift away from nuclear is causing more coal to go online as a backup to renewables (i.e. no batteries or alternatives to store power in). Natural gas too which is admittedly not as bad as coal.
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Hey we got computers that could beat people at chess. Be patient, its just taking a little longer than expected.:-)
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
... I could not bring myself to vote for an R simply because the R's are even more brain damaged and simply refuse to break rank with the orders of the party... if we could get our 'leaders' to break rank, we'd really have a chance at a return to prosperity and good times...
Crossing party lines and voting for the other candidate if they are less of an idiot teaches the party to run better candidates. Loyalty enables these useful idiots, useful to the party that is.
Also for some candidates the speeches are for show. Saying what they feel they "need" to say, not what they actually believe. To get them to break ranks you have to devalue the party, devalue the donors, and only punitive voting will do that. Punitive primarily against misbehaving candidates, secondarily against idiots.
If you can't do that you effectively turn control over to the party machine. Sorry but there is no magic painfree overnight solution. Its a process, there needs to be multiple rounds of no tolerance for misbehavior or stupidity so that darwinian forces come into play. The parties must see repeated losses, repeated absence of loyalty.
People need to understand that loyalty to a party, loyalty to a platform, just enables corruption and useful idiots, it enables the political theatre.
Its not really wearables, the basic cell phone has dramatically decreased the need for a watch, even for someone old like me. As have most of the devices we use or devices that happen to be in the room with us. Computers, tablets, cable tv boxes, microwave oven, etc.
Wearables are just the latest device in a long string of devices reducing the utility of a wrist watch.
My watch wouldn't get used at all if it were not for scuba diving. Besides being old I'm also a software engineer, analog depth gauge and analog watch to backup that dive computer.
The 99% are not in control. They simply get to choose between the options left after the 1% has chosen which candidates the 99% get to pick from.
Your head is stuck in the game of the 1%. I am saying don't play that game, play a different game, the punitive voting game. If your party puts up a total loser as a candidate, abandon them, vote for someone else. Do not support that candidate due to party or platform loyalty. The party will learn to not to select such candidates it members keep abandoning them, its quite simple. Votes are the true currency of politics. If a strategy doesn't get votes then parties and candidates will change.
If you hold you nose and vote for your party's candidate then you abdicate your power to the 1%. They did not take it, you gave it away!
When you have a 2 party system...
The number of parties is irrelevant. If you are loyal to the party you have abdicated your power to the party leadership. Two parties or ten its the same. If you are loyal you are irrelevant, your party already has your vote, the other parties can not get your vote, so all ignore you.
funding for those candidates came from party supporters who have agendas to push for that party
Votes are the true currency of politics. When a candidate has to choose between votes and money, votes win. If a majority of voters are pissed off at you no amount of money can save you. Witness the House Speaker Eric Cantor's defeat to a political "nobody" that he outspent 10 to 1. An incumbent, and powerful party leader, defeated because the Republican voters of his district abandoned him. Learn. Repeat. This is how to retake control, do this to all misbehaving candidates. Parties and politicians will adapt to a disloyal environment, to pay more attention to voters, Darwin wins.
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name. The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
Few people understand how bad party loyalty is.
If a person is loyal to a party then all parties consider that person irrelevant. Their party may ignore them because they already have their vote. Other parties may ignore them because they can not get their vote.
Party loyalty encourages political corruption. Contrary to popular belief the 99% are in control, it is still a one person one vote system. In such a system votes are the true currency of politics. The voters simply spend their votes... well to be honest... stupidly. Politicians are as corrupt as the voters allow them to be. If they cross a line voters can throw them out of office. The problem is that "line" represents are very high threshold, party loyalty is one of the main reasons for such a high threshold.
For politicians to behave reasonably well they must either (1) personally be of high integrity or (2) fear the voters. Which is more likely?
People have to vote punitively if the system is to be reformed. If an incumbent has a history of misbehavior -- actual misdeeds not an honest disagreement on policy -- they need to be voted out of office. Period. No exception. No consideration of their party or the party of a viable opponent. Above all else a politician wants to stay in office. If voters adopt a punitive voting policy then a darwinian process will occur, politicians will learn to fear the voter and to behave more reasonably. They must learn that there is no loyal base to save them, no amount of money for campaign ads that will save them once they have crossed that "line". Its a process, it will take time, there is not alternative, no quick solution, no "magic bullet" legislation that will reform the system. There is only changing voter behavior.
Belong to a party. Be involved in your party. But do not vote for your party or party's platform. Vote for, or punitively against, a particular candidate. That is the only way for voters to maintain control over politicians.
Also if the other party just plainly has a better candidate vote for that other party's candidate. That addresses a secondary problem, the poor quality of party candidates. They only way to force the party to choose better candidate is to have the party member vote for someone else. Again, no loyal base. If you tolerate an idiot because they are your party's candidate you will just get more idiots in the future.
No, its not that the Army knew what it was doing. It was that the Army was designing for an entirely different situation. One where troops were mobile and possibly unable to build a fire.
Not very relevant to backpacking. Not relevant at all to waiting out a storm and its aftermath at home.
I've used MREs on overnight backpacking trips where water supplies were iffy. They make sense for that. They don't make sense for home emergency supplies. A can of chili, a can or foil bag of tunafish, etc -- things probably already around the home -- are just as no-fuss in the home and require no cooking.
Again, unless you are mobile and water is iffy MREs don't make much sense.
Soldiers typically need a lot more calories. Where it would interesting is an emergency food source or part of one for disasters ans such. I keep MREs around just because in the winter, it is possible i can get snowed in for two or three days without power or water (well run off electric )
Unless you are hiking out what is the point of MREs? If you are staying put in your home eat stuff from the refrigerator on day 1, stuff from the freezer on day 2, stuff from the pantry there after. So disaster preparedness for a couple of weeks on your own -- yeah the gov says three days but Katrina and Sandy suggest two weeks is a better plan -- is basically not letting your fridge, freezer and pantry go empty. By some particular item when you use half half of your supply rather than all of it.
For water get a couple of cases (30-35L per case usually) of bottled water per person. When one case gets used up through normal usage buy a replacement.
For toilets have a couple of boxes of large plastic trash bags to line empty toilets with. Again, when one of the two boxes is used up buy a replacement.
Bathing... baby wipes. Hand washing... bottle of hand sanitizer. Batteries... have spare in the drawer, replace when spares used.
Getting the idea... you don't need anything exotic if you are straying in your home. Just some extras of the things you normally have around.
You don't need the MREs until you plan on becoming mobile. Even then you may not need the MREs. If water is plentiful and you have a filter or purification tablets then dehydrated backpacking food may be a better idea. MREs are not dehydrated, they are heavy because they already include "water". Depending on the environment and circumstances it might be a waste to carry that "water". Ounces feel like pounds on a long hike.
That assumes that what I need customized is offered in the customization options which I do not assume. As of Windows Vista/7, I had to start heavily modifying the OS to de-crapify it. I'm taking that as the new normal at this point.
Then your experience is as relevant as Vista/7. As far as 10 goes the list of issues mentioned by the summary are addressed by the built-in installer options, much if not all of them.
Plus I said insert the built-in options at the top of the list, I didn't say discard the rest of the list. Dink around with host files and registry entries to your delight. But don't suggest others need to go there when installer options, and not entering an MS account as you note, will most likely address their concerns.
1. You don't set up a live account. That shuts down most of it.
2. Change the host file to redirect most of the bad domains to localhost.
3. There are going to be endless registry hacks to turn things off or change the way they work.
4. programs are going to be released that change things or replace features with something else that does the same thing but is open source etc.
Basically yes.
Insert at the top of your list, renumber if desired:
0. When the installer gives you the opportunity to customize your setting do so, disable whatever you care too.
And then? If a wallet is lost, the bitcoin is lost forever? No way to re-mine it or anything? Because this would be bad for the future of bitcoin. 7% disappeared with the demise of MtGox. A large number got lost to some UK garbage belt. More will be lost to whatever causes. Over time there may be no bitcoin left!
Supply and demand, then the value of all other coins go up.
Not necessarily. There is also a thing called "reputation". If bitcoin is too error prone for the average user, wallet lost, passphrase forgotten, malware stole wallet and passphrase, etc... then bitcoin gets a bad reputation and the public at large decides not to use it. Then it largely becomes an instrument of speculation as it mostly is today, its price largely determined by the expectation of speculators. Note that today they are generally betting on much wider public adoption. If evidence arises strongly contradicting such adoption the recent $1,000 to $200 price drop of bitcoin will look minor.
Is short, don't forget the warning that accompanies all supply and demand graphs in econ 101: all other things being equal. With bitcoin today there are many other factors beyond supply and demand that are highly volatile.
If a wallet is lost, the bitcoin is lost forever? No way to re-mine it or anything? Because this would be bad for the future of bitcoin. 7% disappeared with the demise of MtGox. A large number got lost to some UK garbage belt. More will be lost to whatever causes. Over time there may be no bitcoin left!
Well to be fair a wallet is a file that can be duplicated, backed up, like any other file; or photocopied if a paper wallet. It doesn't hold coins, it only holds encryption keys that grant access to coins.
And one does not have to rely on an exchange, its this reliance on an exchange that can introduce a major vulnerability. Now your coins are in someone else's wallet, a wallet you cannot backup. If you keep your coins in a wallet you create and backup you may be much safer. Assuming of course you have a secure computer, basically a computer that has been used for nothing other than bitcoins. Use your wallet on your regular malware infested computer and now we have another major vulnerability. Similar story for a wallet on your phone.
Fortunately you can have as many wallets as you like. Wallets on your regular computer and phone with only a small amount of coins, walking around money for a few days. Another wallet on a secure computer with a larger number of coins to occasionally refill the walking around wallets, or make occasional "big" purchases. And an offline wallet (paper) where most coins are stored, more like a savings account.
The simple truth **today** is that bitcoin is not a "currency". It fails the "store of value" test, its too prone to user error for mass adoption. What it is is a good transaction mechanism, a way to quickly transfer/exchange fiat currency. Convert fiat to coin, immediately transfer coin, immediately convert coin to fiat. No holding of coins, just conversion to/from fiat as needed. Many merchants the bitcoin community touts basically do this. They contract with an exchange that offers merchant services. The merchant does all accounting and pricing in fiat, never touches a coin. When a customer wants to pay with coin the exchange silently steps in and presents a coin price and a payment account. The merchant is credited with the fiat amount immediately upon coin receipt verification, its credited fiat paid out daily.
Today **holders** of non-trivial amounts of bitcoins are largely speculators and a few enthusiasts.
The biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's anonymous. The blockchain might identify which wallet had those bitcoins, but there is no way to know who actually controls that wallet.
Bitcoins are anonymous until the other party in the transaction (transfer) identifies you. One only needs the cooperation of the "seller" who accepted your coins to identify you, or the cooperation of the "buyer" who gave you coins, etc. For example you buy something with bitcoins and it gets delivered to you.
That all sounds great, except that helicopter often operate at less than 500 feet above the ground. What happens when EMS is flying at 300ft and crashes into their delivery drone? What about law enforcement? Powerline and pipeline patrol?
I think the 'managed by exception' approach mentioned covers that. Given the gps and communications capabilities of the 'well equipped' drones they could automatically be ordered out of the area and/or excluded from the area. As they would would presumable be excluded from airports, infrastructure like powelines, etc.
In the North East, they even harvest Christmas Trees off the side of the mountain using helicopters, and that is well under 500ft.
The 'communications with other drones' mentioned suggests automated avoidance. Perhaps these 'well equipped' drones would listen for standard aircraft transponders, they seem to include such transponders since they are notifying air traffic control of their position. Avoiding low flying aircraft may be part of their normal avoidance.
I'm not saying they have it all figured out, just that they seem to be considering the sort of things you mention.
If its Linux only don't present it as a successor to TrueCrypt. A very important feature of TrueCrypt is(was) that it targets Linux, Mac OS X and MS Windows. Any archive being available to any of the three platforms.
The successor to TrueCrypt will most likely be something derived from the audited TrueCrypt source code. You just won't compare favorably given the single supported platform. You are just going to create a reputation of being one of the lessor choices, which may be entirely unfair.
Don't handicap yourself. Promote your software on its own merits, don't try to piggyback on TrueCrypts popularity, such a strategy will likely backfire.
The incentive for people to contribute to a closed source project isn't all that much. Remember that open source isn't a gift by your company to the public, it is an offer of trade -- you let the public have the source, the public provides you with feedback (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and gets its suggestions provided back to it. It's a circle.
You are confusing proprietary with closed, its not closed if you have the source and sometimes the source is available for proprietary code. Consider libraries with binary-only and binary-plus-source licenses. In the later case I've had the source, complete rights to modify and redistribute my modification just like the vendor supplied binary. There was a community and a circle of benefits. Licensees provided fixes to the vendor, the vendor incorporated fixes in the main source, the main source was available to binary-plus-source licensees. It was very much like an open source community. We had the source, the right to modify and use it, our future was in our hands despite the proprietary nature of the library. Its a model that has worked.
What this particular vendor is suggesting seems similar to the binary-plus-source model, the main difference being no charge for the source option. History suggests this can work, it worked when the source option cost extra.
Yeah, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't produce a lot of sympathy. Think again about how to make your software free but still want users to pay. What about keeping value-adding plugins or frontends closed and opening the core? If you open source but limit ability of people to make use of the core, what exactly do you expect to gain from such a "community"?
It seems not so much making the software free but making it open to customers. It seems reminiscent of various source licenses I had for various past projects. The vendor offered binary-only and binary-plus-source licenses, fortunately I was able to get management to go for the later. Having the source meant our future was in our hands. I did fix some bugs that we ran in to. One was extremely technical and took a few days to find and fix, reproducibility was extremely low. It was dependent on random memory containing a value that when loaded into an x86 segment register passed verification but led to later permissions violations. It was not something the developers or other customers were running in to, we just got lucky with that random value. For everyone else the random value was failing verification and the erring code path was never executed.
My fixes and the fixes of other customers were incorporated into the vendor's source. We all benefited from the community effort. We had the source and the right to rebuild and link binaries into our projects and redistribute. If we cared to we could have customized things. In practice it was very much like open source efforts for us. Such models work, proprietary with rights to source works.
Furthermore, Colin Powell used the private email server as well as Secretary of State and all of his private emails were lost.
If Colin Powell had run for President it would have been an issue. That is the detail so many people are missing.
Now consider the additional rules and policies that were implemented after Powell, perhaps inspired by Powell's handling. Now consider the greater common knowledge of hacking, official pentagon and white house servers getting hacked, and no one rethinking of whether a self-administered basement email server is a good idea for the Secretary of State. Legal or not it shows a severe lack of good judgment, which is a very important thing to consider in a Presidential candidate.
I wonder if a 3rd party lib is responsible for any of this, quietly committing the fraud without the app developer's knowledge? Unless those 5,000+ apps are coming from a relatively small number of developers.
I'm actually OK with licensing of operators, something on the order of a 4-hour class covering laws and safety. But I am also confident that the CA legislature will take things far beyond any reasonable point.
Slashdot Mirror
"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way
Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.
No, you are operating under the myth that we have the time to wait for renewables like solar and wind. We don't, decades of science and engineering are ahead of us. Even then the ability to manufacture sufficient battery (or alternative) storage is unknown. We need nuclear as a bridge. The cost of nuclear is not an issue since we don't have the time. We need to take coal offline immediately. However the shift to renewables combined with a shift away from nuclear is causing more coal to go online as a backup to renewables (i.e. no batteries or alternatives to store power in). Natural gas too which is admittedly not as bad as coal.
Saying its changed before to excuse us changing it now is stupidity.
Good thing I didn't say that and was only expressing non-surprise that something as "immense" as the oceans can be changed by a single species. :-)
In 85 years we'll have flying cars, submersible habitats, colonies on the moon, we'll be terraforming Mars and flying around in spaceships. Course, all that was supposed to have happened - well, now According to the "experts".
Hey we got computers that could beat people at chess. Be patient, its just taking a little longer than expected. :-)
It can seem kind of crazy that one of the most immense properties on Earth—the ocean washes over 71 percent of the planet—could be completely transformed by a swarm of comparatively tiny, fleshy mammals.
Why? The oceans have radically changed before due to the actions of microbes. It may have taken them longer but the change were even more dramatic.
There is no "normal" earth atmosphere, no "normal" earth ocean. To humans there is merely the incarnation of the atmosphere and ocean that we evolved in, that is good for us and the other creatures and plants that evolved "contemporaneously" to us.
... I could not bring myself to vote for an R simply because the R's are even more brain damaged and simply refuse to break rank with the orders of the party ... if we could get our 'leaders' to break rank, we'd really have a chance at a return to prosperity and good times ...
Crossing party lines and voting for the other candidate if they are less of an idiot teaches the party to run better candidates. Loyalty enables these useful idiots, useful to the party that is.
Also for some candidates the speeches are for show. Saying what they feel they "need" to say, not what they actually believe. To get them to break ranks you have to devalue the party, devalue the donors, and only punitive voting will do that. Punitive primarily against misbehaving candidates, secondarily against idiots.
If you can't do that you effectively turn control over to the party machine. Sorry but there is no magic painfree overnight solution. Its a process, there needs to be multiple rounds of no tolerance for misbehavior or stupidity so that darwinian forces come into play. The parties must see repeated losses, repeated absence of loyalty.
People need to understand that loyalty to a party, loyalty to a platform, just enables corruption and useful idiots, it enables the political theatre.
Its not really wearables, the basic cell phone has dramatically decreased the need for a watch, even for someone old like me. As have most of the devices we use or devices that happen to be in the room with us. Computers, tablets, cable tv boxes, microwave oven, etc.
Wearables are just the latest device in a long string of devices reducing the utility of a wrist watch.
My watch wouldn't get used at all if it were not for scuba diving. Besides being old I'm also a software engineer, analog depth gauge and analog watch to backup that dive computer.
The 99% are not in control. They simply get to choose between the options left after the 1% has chosen which candidates the 99% get to pick from.
Your head is stuck in the game of the 1%. I am saying don't play that game, play a different game, the punitive voting game. If your party puts up a total loser as a candidate, abandon them, vote for someone else. Do not support that candidate due to party or platform loyalty. The party will learn to not to select such candidates it members keep abandoning them, its quite simple. Votes are the true currency of politics. If a strategy doesn't get votes then parties and candidates will change.
If you hold you nose and vote for your party's candidate then you abdicate your power to the 1%. They did not take it, you gave it away!
When you have a 2 party system ...
The number of parties is irrelevant. If you are loyal to the party you have abdicated your power to the party leadership. Two parties or ten its the same. If you are loyal you are irrelevant, your party already has your vote, the other parties can not get your vote, so all ignore you.
funding for those candidates came from party supporters who have agendas to push for that party
Votes are the true currency of politics. When a candidate has to choose between votes and money, votes win. If a majority of voters are pissed off at you no amount of money can save you. Witness the House Speaker Eric Cantor's defeat to a political "nobody" that he outspent 10 to 1. An incumbent, and powerful party leader, defeated because the Republican voters of his district abandoned him. Learn. Repeat. This is how to retake control, do this to all misbehaving candidates. Parties and politicians will adapt to a disloyal environment, to pay more attention to voters, Darwin wins.
For the same reason that former Sec. of State Colin Powell also used a private server.
And if he had run for president that would have been a major issue in the campaign.
That's not true. Legions will support her because she has a "D" after her name. Seriously, a hen could be running and get 30% of the vote if it had a "D" after it's name. Same is true for the republicans and an "R" after there name. The problem is we are voting for PARTY above the PERSON. Biggest flipping mistake a human can make in selecting leaders.
Few people understand how bad party loyalty is.
... well to be honest ... stupidly. Politicians are as corrupt as the voters allow them to be. If they cross a line voters can throw them out of office. The problem is that "line" represents are very high threshold, party loyalty is one of the main reasons for such a high threshold.
If a person is loyal to a party then all parties consider that person irrelevant. Their party may ignore them because they already have their vote. Other parties may ignore them because they can not get their vote.
Party loyalty encourages political corruption. Contrary to popular belief the 99% are in control, it is still a one person one vote system. In such a system votes are the true currency of politics. The voters simply spend their votes
For politicians to behave reasonably well they must either (1) personally be of high integrity or (2) fear the voters. Which is more likely?
People have to vote punitively if the system is to be reformed. If an incumbent has a history of misbehavior -- actual misdeeds not an honest disagreement on policy -- they need to be voted out of office. Period. No exception. No consideration of their party or the party of a viable opponent. Above all else a politician wants to stay in office. If voters adopt a punitive voting policy then a darwinian process will occur, politicians will learn to fear the voter and to behave more reasonably. They must learn that there is no loyal base to save them, no amount of money for campaign ads that will save them once they have crossed that "line". Its a process, it will take time, there is not alternative, no quick solution, no "magic bullet" legislation that will reform the system. There is only changing voter behavior.
Belong to a party. Be involved in your party. But do not vote for your party or party's platform. Vote for, or punitively against, a particular candidate. That is the only way for voters to maintain control over politicians.
Also if the other party just plainly has a better candidate vote for that other party's candidate. That addresses a secondary problem, the poor quality of party candidates. They only way to force the party to choose better candidate is to have the party member vote for someone else. Again, no loyal base. If you tolerate an idiot because they are your party's candidate you will just get more idiots in the future.
I just installed Win10 via upgrade and rather easily turned off almost all the reporting features within minutes from the control panel.
You could have turned off the reporting from the installer by selecting the custom configuration option.
No, its not that the Army knew what it was doing. It was that the Army was designing for an entirely different situation. One where troops were mobile and possibly unable to build a fire.
Not very relevant to backpacking. Not relevant at all to waiting out a storm and its aftermath at home.
I've used MREs on overnight backpacking trips where water supplies were iffy. They make sense for that. They don't make sense for home emergency supplies. A can of chili, a can or foil bag of tunafish, etc -- things probably already around the home -- are just as no-fuss in the home and require no cooking.
Again, unless you are mobile and water is iffy MREs don't make much sense.
Soldiers typically need a lot more calories. Where it would interesting is an emergency food source or part of one for disasters ans such. I keep MREs around just because in the winter, it is possible i can get snowed in for two or three days without power or water (well run off electric )
Unless you are hiking out what is the point of MREs? If you are staying put in your home eat stuff from the refrigerator on day 1, stuff from the freezer on day 2, stuff from the pantry there after. So disaster preparedness for a couple of weeks on your own -- yeah the gov says three days but Katrina and Sandy suggest two weeks is a better plan -- is basically not letting your fridge, freezer and pantry go empty. By some particular item when you use half half of your supply rather than all of it.
... baby wipes. Hand washing ... bottle of hand sanitizer. Batteries ... have spare in the drawer, replace when spares used.
... you don't need anything exotic if you are straying in your home. Just some extras of the things you normally have around.
For water get a couple of cases (30-35L per case usually) of bottled water per person. When one case gets used up through normal usage buy a replacement.
For toilets have a couple of boxes of large plastic trash bags to line empty toilets with. Again, when one of the two boxes is used up buy a replacement.
Bathing
Getting the idea
You don't need the MREs until you plan on becoming mobile. Even then you may not need the MREs. If water is plentiful and you have a filter or purification tablets then dehydrated backpacking food may be a better idea. MREs are not dehydrated, they are heavy because they already include "water". Depending on the environment and circumstances it might be a waste to carry that "water". Ounces feel like pounds on a long hike.
That assumes that what I need customized is offered in the customization options which I do not assume. As of Windows Vista/7, I had to start heavily modifying the OS to de-crapify it. I'm taking that as the new normal at this point.
Then your experience is as relevant as Vista/7. As far as 10 goes the list of issues mentioned by the summary are addressed by the built-in installer options, much if not all of them.
Plus I said insert the built-in options at the top of the list, I didn't say discard the rest of the list. Dink around with host files and registry entries to your delight. But don't suggest others need to go there when installer options, and not entering an MS account as you note, will most likely address their concerns.
1. You don't set up a live account. That shuts down most of it. 2. Change the host file to redirect most of the bad domains to localhost. 3. There are going to be endless registry hacks to turn things off or change the way they work. 4. programs are going to be released that change things or replace features with something else that does the same thing but is open source etc.
Basically yes.
Insert at the top of your list, renumber if desired:
0. When the installer gives you the opportunity to customize your setting do so, disable whatever you care too.
And then? If a wallet is lost, the bitcoin is lost forever? No way to re-mine it or anything? Because this would be bad for the future of bitcoin. 7% disappeared with the demise of MtGox. A large number got lost to some UK garbage belt. More will be lost to whatever causes. Over time there may be no bitcoin left!
Supply and demand, then the value of all other coins go up.
Not necessarily. There is also a thing called "reputation". If bitcoin is too error prone for the average user, wallet lost, passphrase forgotten, malware stole wallet and passphrase, etc ... then bitcoin gets a bad reputation and the public at large decides not to use it. Then it largely becomes an instrument of speculation as it mostly is today, its price largely determined by the expectation of speculators. Note that today they are generally betting on much wider public adoption. If evidence arises strongly contradicting such adoption the recent $1,000 to $200 price drop of bitcoin will look minor.
Is short, don't forget the warning that accompanies all supply and demand graphs in econ 101: all other things being equal. With bitcoin today there are many other factors beyond supply and demand that are highly volatile.
If a wallet is lost, the bitcoin is lost forever? No way to re-mine it or anything? Because this would be bad for the future of bitcoin. 7% disappeared with the demise of MtGox. A large number got lost to some UK garbage belt. More will be lost to whatever causes. Over time there may be no bitcoin left!
Well to be fair a wallet is a file that can be duplicated, backed up, like any other file; or photocopied if a paper wallet. It doesn't hold coins, it only holds encryption keys that grant access to coins.
And one does not have to rely on an exchange, its this reliance on an exchange that can introduce a major vulnerability. Now your coins are in someone else's wallet, a wallet you cannot backup. If you keep your coins in a wallet you create and backup you may be much safer. Assuming of course you have a secure computer, basically a computer that has been used for nothing other than bitcoins. Use your wallet on your regular malware infested computer and now we have another major vulnerability. Similar story for a wallet on your phone.
Fortunately you can have as many wallets as you like. Wallets on your regular computer and phone with only a small amount of coins, walking around money for a few days. Another wallet on a secure computer with a larger number of coins to occasionally refill the walking around wallets, or make occasional "big" purchases. And an offline wallet (paper) where most coins are stored, more like a savings account.
The simple truth **today** is that bitcoin is not a "currency". It fails the "store of value" test, its too prone to user error for mass adoption. What it is is a good transaction mechanism, a way to quickly transfer/exchange fiat currency. Convert fiat to coin, immediately transfer coin, immediately convert coin to fiat. No holding of coins, just conversion to/from fiat as needed. Many merchants the bitcoin community touts basically do this. They contract with an exchange that offers merchant services. The merchant does all accounting and pricing in fiat, never touches a coin. When a customer wants to pay with coin the exchange silently steps in and presents a coin price and a payment account. The merchant is credited with the fiat amount immediately upon coin receipt verification, its credited fiat paid out daily.
Today **holders** of non-trivial amounts of bitcoins are largely speculators and a few enthusiasts.
The biggest advantage of Bitcoin is that it's anonymous. The blockchain might identify which wallet had those bitcoins, but there is no way to know who actually controls that wallet.
Bitcoins are anonymous until the other party in the transaction (transfer) identifies you. One only needs the cooperation of the "seller" who accepted your coins to identify you, or the cooperation of the "buyer" who gave you coins, etc. For example you buy something with bitcoins and it gets delivered to you.
That all sounds great, except that helicopter often operate at less than 500 feet above the ground. What happens when EMS is flying at 300ft and crashes into their delivery drone? What about law enforcement? Powerline and pipeline patrol?
I think the 'managed by exception' approach mentioned covers that. Given the gps and communications capabilities of the 'well equipped' drones they could automatically be ordered out of the area and/or excluded from the area. As they would would presumable be excluded from airports, infrastructure like powelines, etc.
In the North East, they even harvest Christmas Trees off the side of the mountain using helicopters, and that is well under 500ft.
The 'communications with other drones' mentioned suggests automated avoidance. Perhaps these 'well equipped' drones would listen for standard aircraft transponders, they seem to include such transponders since they are notifying air traffic control of their position. Avoiding low flying aircraft may be part of their normal avoidance.
I'm not saying they have it all figured out, just that they seem to be considering the sort of things you mention.
Its a government contract, cost overruns due to inadequate or changing specifications are to be expected. :-)
If its Linux only don't present it as a successor to TrueCrypt. A very important feature of TrueCrypt is(was) that it targets Linux, Mac OS X and MS Windows. Any archive being available to any of the three platforms.
The successor to TrueCrypt will most likely be something derived from the audited TrueCrypt source code. You just won't compare favorably given the single supported platform. You are just going to create a reputation of being one of the lessor choices, which may be entirely unfair.
Don't handicap yourself. Promote your software on its own merits, don't try to piggyback on TrueCrypts popularity, such a strategy will likely backfire.
The incentive for people to contribute to a closed source project isn't all that much. Remember that open source isn't a gift by your company to the public, it is an offer of trade -- you let the public have the source, the public provides you with feedback (bug fixes, enhancements, etc.) and gets its suggestions provided back to it. It's a circle.
You are confusing proprietary with closed, its not closed if you have the source and sometimes the source is available for proprietary code. Consider libraries with binary-only and binary-plus-source licenses. In the later case I've had the source, complete rights to modify and redistribute my modification just like the vendor supplied binary. There was a community and a circle of benefits. Licensees provided fixes to the vendor, the vendor incorporated fixes in the main source, the main source was available to binary-plus-source licensees. It was very much like an open source community. We had the source, the right to modify and use it, our future was in our hands despite the proprietary nature of the library. Its a model that has worked.
What this particular vendor is suggesting seems similar to the binary-plus-source model, the main difference being no charge for the source option. History suggests this can work, it worked when the source option cost extra.
Yeah, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Doesn't produce a lot of sympathy. Think again about how to make your software free but still want users to pay. What about keeping value-adding plugins or frontends closed and opening the core? If you open source but limit ability of people to make use of the core, what exactly do you expect to gain from such a "community"?
It seems not so much making the software free but making it open to customers. It seems reminiscent of various source licenses I had for various past projects. The vendor offered binary-only and binary-plus-source licenses, fortunately I was able to get management to go for the later. Having the source meant our future was in our hands. I did fix some bugs that we ran in to. One was extremely technical and took a few days to find and fix, reproducibility was extremely low. It was dependent on random memory containing a value that when loaded into an x86 segment register passed verification but led to later permissions violations. It was not something the developers or other customers were running in to, we just got lucky with that random value. For everyone else the random value was failing verification and the erring code path was never executed.
My fixes and the fixes of other customers were incorporated into the vendor's source. We all benefited from the community effort. We had the source and the right to rebuild and link binaries into our projects and redistribute. If we cared to we could have customized things. In practice it was very much like open source efforts for us. Such models work, proprietary with rights to source works.
Furthermore, Colin Powell used the private email server as well as Secretary of State and all of his private emails were lost.
If Colin Powell had run for President it would have been an issue. That is the detail so many people are missing.
Now consider the additional rules and policies that were implemented after Powell, perhaps inspired by Powell's handling. Now consider the greater common knowledge of hacking, official pentagon and white house servers getting hacked, and no one rethinking of whether a self-administered basement email server is a good idea for the Secretary of State. Legal or not it shows a severe lack of good judgment, which is a very important thing to consider in a Presidential candidate.
I wonder if a 3rd party lib is responsible for any of this, quietly committing the fraud without the app developer's knowledge? Unless those 5,000+ apps are coming from a relatively small number of developers.
I'm actually OK with licensing of operators, something on the order of a 4-hour class covering laws and safety. But I am also confident that the CA legislature will take things far beyond any reasonable point.