In theory, as the system is designed, your ISP gives you a/64. There's no reason for them to give you less than that, technologically. They could choose to do so for business reasons, if your ISP is especially sleezy, perhaps as a means to prevent small businesses from using a cheaper residential service rather than paying for a business connection. But that's a business abuse, not an issue with the protocol, and there are plenty of ways ISPs can already misconfigure IPv4 to maximise profit.
It's risky though. Exit nodes can be used for all sorts of illegal activity - hacking, fraud, child abuse imagery, the usual suspects. There's a small but worrying chance of being busted by the police for a crime commited via your node. You can probably use the node to demonstrate that you are not guilty of the accused crime, but that doesn't until after they've siezed every computer, phone and storage device you own, destroyed your reputation, cost you your job and crippled you financially with legal costs. Criminal investigations are damaging even if no charges are eventually pursued.
I'm wondering what will happen if some well-intentioned but morally-dubious virus writer puts together malware that installs exit nodes. That would be amusing.
1. Import students. 2. Train students. 3. Ship students back to where cost of living is very low. 4. Offshore work to new ultra-low-pay skilled labor pool.
Sure we do. We have skyscrapers that are able to endure a sustained 1G acceleration, and a generation ship doesn't need to run a full G. You'd have to build the thing in space, of course. It'd also need a lot of technological advances in materials, zero-loss life support, compact manufacturing and so on. But it's still just an engineering problem - it doesn't need any magic warp drive or reactionless thruster. Just an unimaginable amount of money, which means it might be possible at some point in the distant future when mankind isn't spending most of their production capacity on building more effective means to kill each other.
The quantum vacuum thruster might be a dead end - right now it's just a few interesting results that are likely just the result of experimental error. It's going to need a lot more confirmation yet. Even those few interesting results haven't made peer review journals. Even if it does pan out though, and the physics actually works, it's still not fuelless. It's propellentless, but it does need energy, and a lot of it. Solar panels are essentially useless in interstellar space, so you'll still end up slowly burning through a stock of whatever power source you bring along - probably something radioactive.
"More recently, people have chosen to live at the South Pole, which is almost as desolate as the Moon."
No-one has been optimistic enough to colonise near the pole. There are outposts there for scientific purposes, but they are not self-sustaining - they depend entirely on supplies from outside.
The good thing about generation ships is that they are possible. Expensive, yes - they are firmly in the realm of megaproject, something that would take a politically unified earth and a good chunk of the GDP of all civilisation for a few decades. But that's just a logistics and engineering problem: They don't depend on any fundamental change in our understanding of the universe or inventions that might not even be allowed by the laws of physics.
Easily enough done. I've ended up part of one twice - once at home due to a misconfigured NTP server, and once at work after we upgraded a firewall and some of the rules were not copied over by the migration tool allowing us to be used for DNS amplification.
If they wanted to 'test their capabilities' they could have just hit some obscure and unimportant site that no-one would even notice being down. Or they could have picked a target that would be a plausible target for Anonymous and let the world blame it on them - hit Sony again, perhaps, or some state-owned company in Russia. Attacking one of the world's most read and respected news organisations and the claiming credit for it publicly (Or, more likely, claiming the credit after someone else takes the BBC site down) just seems like a plea for attention.
Does IS even have websites? I've been lead by various news reports to conclude that they have an extensive social media propaganda campaign, but it isn't run through their own websites. Just an ever-shifting set of youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter accounts and so forth.
I'm guessing New World Hacking is following news of their exploits, which includes reading the comments here, so: Knock it off. You want to attack Islamic State? Go have a try at following their social media presence and report as many of their accounts as you can find to the service operators. You will probably have to learn a few additional languages though - Arabic does not do well on machine translation, and even in the areas IS operates Arabic isn't always the most commonly spoken of languages. That sounds like a better idea, with the added bonus of being legal so you can operate in the open and recruit a few more people - and you'll need them. Use those people to promote a countering narrative - spread word of their atrocities, and make fun of their idiotic proclamations. Religion is always week against mockery - once it loses respect it loses authority too.
Most alchemists had patrons. That's how they funded their alchemy.
The deal usually involved the alchemist agreeing to make gold if the patron provided the workshop, living expenses and money for essential reagents. The alchemist would spend a bit of time doing their alchemy thing, then disappear mysteriously when the patron started to get impatient about the lack of gold production.
The US does not lack for farmland, so food security is not a great issue there. The amount of farmland is great enough to support production of large amounts of non-staple luxury foods and feed for livestock. You could wipe out half the farmland in the US and people still wouldn't starve. It's still an issue for some other countries though - the UK, for example, with our much higher population density. Following the need to introduce rationing following WW2 our government invested a lot of resources into modernising agriculture in order to ensure we wouldn't be dependant upon food imports in future. I don't know how well they succeeded, but we do import a lot of food. Especially meat.
Shouldn't that hold only if the beneficiary is causing or allowing by inaction the immoral act?
If I learn that my employer is buying a few thousand pieces of expensive but useless junk off a a company that happens to also be owned by the CEO as part of a 'tax efficient' optimisation, does it add anything new to the wrongness for me to then appropriate some of the junk that is heading off for disposal and put it on eBay for myself? As a low-level employee, I wouldn't have any way to stop the immoral act: It's just a matter of if I choose to exploit the situation to my own advantage, and create no additional harm in doing so.
This is a publisher of lies and woo. They do not deserve to be pirated. They do not deserve to be read. They do not even deserve to be acknowledged, except for purposes of mockery.
Not quite. If you submit a counterclaim than the DMCA takedown is neutralised and you go back to the old-fashioned method: They can still sue you in a civil court.
There is an unanticipated issue with the counterclaim though: It requires revealing your real identity and address (to enable the suing), which can be a dangerous thing to do in a lot of hostile debate communities. It invites harassment.
There is one point in the DMCA claim that is given under penalty of perjury: The submitter of the claim must attest that they are the copyright holder, or empowered to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of the work in question. That part of the claim is given under penalty of perjury.
There is, though, no requirement that the rest of the claim be accurate. This is intentional: It was expected from the very beginning that some level of automation would be required, so there was always the risk infringement would be mistakenly identified and a takedown sent where no infringement actually took place. That's why the counternotice procedure is also included. The sheer scale on which the DMCA would eventually be used was not anticipated though. The internet was a small place in 1998.
A deep space module needs to be able to maintain a crew for years without resupply. That means bulky life support spaces - either a huge amount of food and oxygen storage or a farm module - along with enough spare parts to repair any and all possible faults that might occur. With the habitable parts wrapped up in heavy radiation shielding. You're not getting that up in one piece - it's going to have to be assembled in orbit using a modular design, probably involving a few habitation and life support modules connected up to non-habitable supply modules. Skylab is about the biggest you can launch in one piece, and it's far too small to go to deep space. A manned craft for deep space is going to look a lot like a smaller and more linear version of the ISS.
The article talking about a 'habitation module' isn't helpful. Surviving for years without supplies doesn't need a module, it needs a whole complex of modules that fit and work together.
How about just extending the ISS lifetime? It's a modular station. It should be possible to make it operate for longer, even if it means building an entire new station bolted on the side and operating them in parallel until the old one can be decomissioned and deorbited. It'd still be cheaper than building a completely new station because you've already got long-term habitation and life support capability for construction, and can scavenge the old modules for usable parts to reduce the mass that must be launched. Use it as a testbed for testing longer-term life support technology that needs less frequent resupplying. By the time you've designed ISSv2 and operated it for a few years, you've already got half the design done for a Mars habitation module - the fundamental technologies are the same. Just need to stick on some more radiation shielding and a flare shelter. You can even use the ISS as a sort of 'space construction yard' to build your manned Mars ship, as it'll be far too big to go up in one launch and having a convenient manned orbital facility means you can send each new part up on an unmanned launcher rather than having to send astronauts to do the bolts and hook up the cables along with it. It would require some orbit adjustments, a bit higher up and perhaps less inclined, but that should be doable.
The politics are a bit awkward though. Russia is happy to take their ISS modules and build their own station from them, but it's not clear to what extent they'll cooperate with NASA on any Mars ambitions. Given the current tendency of politics in that country they might decide that having their own all-Russian station would bring more prestige than cooperation on an extended international cooperative. They are still proud of MIR - and having a bigger, better MIR operating after the ISS is eventually decommissioned would firmly cement their claim to be the once again the most advanced nation in terms of space capability.
The SF fans can distinguish fantasy from reality. They just want to make their fantasy into reality by the transformative power of a giant pile of money.
Entrapment does not mean the subject did not commit a crime. It just means the crime cannot be prosecuted if a government agent induced the crime, and if the crime would not have been committed without that agent's involvement. It's standard training for any undercover officer to know exactly what they must not ask. A chatbot that befriends people, steers the conversation towards crime and gets them to admit their past illegal activities would not comprise entrapment. A chatbot that befriends people, convinces them that drugs are cool and claims to know a trustworthy guy they can buy pot from, however, may well be considered entrapment. This is all well-established law now, as it comes up frequently whenever undercover officers are used.
I was specifically speaking in the context of speeding and other traffic fines. I could research every state and find out exactly what happens to the fines in each one, but it's enough to know that, as you admit, in some states this money does indeed stay with the local police force.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, as the system is designed, your ISP gives you a /64. There's no reason for them to give you less than that, technologically. They could choose to do so for business reasons, if your ISP is especially sleezy, perhaps as a means to prevent small businesses from using a cheaper residential service rather than paying for a business connection. But that's a business abuse, not an issue with the protocol, and there are plenty of ways ISPs can already misconfigure IPv4 to maximise profit.
If you try it then a mob of angry engineers come to reeducate you with blunt instruments.
It's risky though. Exit nodes can be used for all sorts of illegal activity - hacking, fraud, child abuse imagery, the usual suspects. There's a small but worrying chance of being busted by the police for a crime commited via your node. You can probably use the node to demonstrate that you are not guilty of the accused crime, but that doesn't until after they've siezed every computer, phone and storage device you own, destroyed your reputation, cost you your job and crippled you financially with legal costs. Criminal investigations are damaging even if no charges are eventually pursued.
I'm wondering what will happen if some well-intentioned but morally-dubious virus writer puts together malware that installs exit nodes. That would be amusing.
1. Import students.
2. Train students.
3. Ship students back to where cost of living is very low.
4. Offshore work to new ultra-low-pay skilled labor pool.
Sure we do. We have skyscrapers that are able to endure a sustained 1G acceleration, and a generation ship doesn't need to run a full G. You'd have to build the thing in space, of course. It'd also need a lot of technological advances in materials, zero-loss life support, compact manufacturing and so on. But it's still just an engineering problem - it doesn't need any magic warp drive or reactionless thruster. Just an unimaginable amount of money, which means it might be possible at some point in the distant future when mankind isn't spending most of their production capacity on building more effective means to kill each other.
The quantum vacuum thruster might be a dead end - right now it's just a few interesting results that are likely just the result of experimental error. It's going to need a lot more confirmation yet. Even those few interesting results haven't made peer review journals. Even if it does pan out though, and the physics actually works, it's still not fuelless. It's propellentless, but it does need energy, and a lot of it. Solar panels are essentially useless in interstellar space, so you'll still end up slowly burning through a stock of whatever power source you bring along - probably something radioactive.
"More recently, people have chosen to live at the South Pole, which is almost as desolate as the Moon."
No-one has been optimistic enough to colonise near the pole. There are outposts there for scientific purposes, but they are not self-sustaining - they depend entirely on supplies from outside.
The good thing about generation ships is that they are possible. Expensive, yes - they are firmly in the realm of megaproject, something that would take a politically unified earth and a good chunk of the GDP of all civilisation for a few decades. But that's just a logistics and engineering problem: They don't depend on any fundamental change in our understanding of the universe or inventions that might not even be allowed by the laws of physics.
Easily enough done. I've ended up part of one twice - once at home due to a misconfigured NTP server, and once at work after we upgraded a firewall and some of the rules were not copied over by the migration tool allowing us to be used for DNS amplification.
If they wanted to 'test their capabilities' they could have just hit some obscure and unimportant site that no-one would even notice being down. Or they could have picked a target that would be a plausible target for Anonymous and let the world blame it on them - hit Sony again, perhaps, or some state-owned company in Russia. Attacking one of the world's most read and respected news organisations and the claiming credit for it publicly (Or, more likely, claiming the credit after someone else takes the BBC site down) just seems like a plea for attention.
Does IS even have websites? I've been lead by various news reports to conclude that they have an extensive social media propaganda campaign, but it isn't run through their own websites. Just an ever-shifting set of youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter accounts and so forth.
I'm guessing New World Hacking is following news of their exploits, which includes reading the comments here, so: Knock it off. You want to attack Islamic State? Go have a try at following their social media presence and report as many of their accounts as you can find to the service operators. You will probably have to learn a few additional languages though - Arabic does not do well on machine translation, and even in the areas IS operates Arabic isn't always the most commonly spoken of languages. That sounds like a better idea, with the added bonus of being legal so you can operate in the open and recruit a few more people - and you'll need them. Use those people to promote a countering narrative - spread word of their atrocities, and make fun of their idiotic proclamations. Religion is always week against mockery - once it loses respect it loses authority too.
Not a problem - once the robots put everyone out of work, volunteer time will be plentiful as people just try to find something to do with themselves.
Most alchemists had patrons. That's how they funded their alchemy.
The deal usually involved the alchemist agreeing to make gold if the patron provided the workshop, living expenses and money for essential reagents. The alchemist would spend a bit of time doing their alchemy thing, then disappear mysteriously when the patron started to get impatient about the lack of gold production.
Detox and Revitalize: Color Pathway to the Soul.
The others aren't any better.
The US does not lack for farmland, so food security is not a great issue there. The amount of farmland is great enough to support production of large amounts of non-staple luxury foods and feed for livestock. You could wipe out half the farmland in the US and people still wouldn't starve. It's still an issue for some other countries though - the UK, for example, with our much higher population density. Following the need to introduce rationing following WW2 our government invested a lot of resources into modernising agriculture in order to ensure we wouldn't be dependant upon food imports in future. I don't know how well they succeeded, but we do import a lot of food. Especially meat.
Shouldn't that hold only if the beneficiary is causing or allowing by inaction the immoral act?
If I learn that my employer is buying a few thousand pieces of expensive but useless junk off a a company that happens to also be owned by the CEO as part of a 'tax efficient' optimisation, does it add anything new to the wrongness for me to then appropriate some of the junk that is heading off for disposal and put it on eBay for myself? As a low-level employee, I wouldn't have any way to stop the immoral act: It's just a matter of if I choose to exploit the situation to my own advantage, and create no additional harm in doing so.
An earlier commenter pointed out that Square One publishes some books of medical lies, peddling false cancer cures and the like, but check this out:
http://www.squareonepublishers...
http://www.squareonepublishers...
http://www.squareonepublishers...
This is a publisher of lies and woo. They do not deserve to be pirated. They do not deserve to be read. They do not even deserve to be acknowledged, except for purposes of mockery.
Not quite. If you submit a counterclaim than the DMCA takedown is neutralised and you go back to the old-fashioned method: They can still sue you in a civil court.
There is an unanticipated issue with the counterclaim though: It requires revealing your real identity and address (to enable the suing), which can be a dangerous thing to do in a lot of hostile debate communities. It invites harassment.
We should start contacting the pirates too and making sure they know not to distribute this trash. It doesn't deserve to be read at all.
There is one point in the DMCA claim that is given under penalty of perjury: The submitter of the claim must attest that they are the copyright holder, or empowered to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of the work in question. That part of the claim is given under penalty of perjury.
There is, though, no requirement that the rest of the claim be accurate. This is intentional: It was expected from the very beginning that some level of automation would be required, so there was always the risk infringement would be mistakenly identified and a takedown sent where no infringement actually took place. That's why the counternotice procedure is also included. The sheer scale on which the DMCA would eventually be used was not anticipated though. The internet was a small place in 1998.
The ISS is in a rather awkward orbit. Well, awkward for everyone except Russia. Which is why it's so inclined.
A deep space module needs to be able to maintain a crew for years without resupply. That means bulky life support spaces - either a huge amount of food and oxygen storage or a farm module - along with enough spare parts to repair any and all possible faults that might occur. With the habitable parts wrapped up in heavy radiation shielding. You're not getting that up in one piece - it's going to have to be assembled in orbit using a modular design, probably involving a few habitation and life support modules connected up to non-habitable supply modules. Skylab is about the biggest you can launch in one piece, and it's far too small to go to deep space. A manned craft for deep space is going to look a lot like a smaller and more linear version of the ISS.
The article talking about a 'habitation module' isn't helpful. Surviving for years without supplies doesn't need a module, it needs a whole complex of modules that fit and work together.
How about just extending the ISS lifetime? It's a modular station. It should be possible to make it operate for longer, even if it means building an entire new station bolted on the side and operating them in parallel until the old one can be decomissioned and deorbited. It'd still be cheaper than building a completely new station because you've already got long-term habitation and life support capability for construction, and can scavenge the old modules for usable parts to reduce the mass that must be launched. Use it as a testbed for testing longer-term life support technology that needs less frequent resupplying. By the time you've designed ISSv2 and operated it for a few years, you've already got half the design done for a Mars habitation module - the fundamental technologies are the same. Just need to stick on some more radiation shielding and a flare shelter. You can even use the ISS as a sort of 'space construction yard' to build your manned Mars ship, as it'll be far too big to go up in one launch and having a convenient manned orbital facility means you can send each new part up on an unmanned launcher rather than having to send astronauts to do the bolts and hook up the cables along with it. It would require some orbit adjustments, a bit higher up and perhaps less inclined, but that should be doable.
The politics are a bit awkward though. Russia is happy to take their ISS modules and build their own station from them, but it's not clear to what extent they'll cooperate with NASA on any Mars ambitions. Given the current tendency of politics in that country they might decide that having their own all-Russian station would bring more prestige than cooperation on an extended international cooperative. They are still proud of MIR - and having a bigger, better MIR operating after the ISS is eventually decommissioned would firmly cement their claim to be the once again the most advanced nation in terms of space capability.
The SF fans can distinguish fantasy from reality. They just want to make their fantasy into reality by the transformative power of a giant pile of money.
Entrapment does not mean the subject did not commit a crime. It just means the crime cannot be prosecuted if a government agent induced the crime, and if the crime would not have been committed without that agent's involvement. It's standard training for any undercover officer to know exactly what they must not ask. A chatbot that befriends people, steers the conversation towards crime and gets them to admit their past illegal activities would not comprise entrapment. A chatbot that befriends people, convinces them that drugs are cool and claims to know a trustworthy guy they can buy pot from, however, may well be considered entrapment. This is all well-established law now, as it comes up frequently whenever undercover officers are used.
I was specifically speaking in the context of speeding and other traffic fines. I could research every state and find out exactly what happens to the fines in each one, but it's enough to know that, as you admit, in some states this money does indeed stay with the local police force.