If you directly assist someone in kidnapping, you are guilty. If you directly assist someone in murder, you are guilty.
If you directly assist someone in the spying and eventual torture or death of someone at the hands of a government you knew would do that... by your reasoning your magically excused?
I'm simply saying that if you assist someone in the commission of something which would be a crime where your business is based, assisting them to do the same thing in another country doesn't change a damned thing.
Companies who knowingly sell these things to countries they know will abuse it are not suddenly absolved of being culpable for the things their products have been designed for.
Selling this stuff to these regimes is little different than being an art dealer for the Nazis, or selling munitions to Iran -- you know it's causing harm, but you're profiting off it. As a result, you should be subject to legal recourse.
And if your name is similar to someone who *might* do something the government doesn't like, you're guilty.
Yeah, you're just overly paranoid. Go take a look at how it works.
btw, I know you don't know anything because of the stupidity you are spouting. It's the general way any knowledgable person can spot the ignorant. I don't like to hand out information because babies with silver spoons in their mouths...
Really? Rather than engage, you resort to ad hominem and ad ignorantium attacks? Smooth. I'm so impressed.
And what do protocols have to do with implementations???
You know, I just went back and read your post again. Are you serious? Do you even know what a protocol is? As I said, I'm not intimately familiar with payment systems technology, but I know enough to say that there are at least two protocols which must be adhered to by any implementation of a contactless payment processing system for the elements to communicate: some sort of communication protocol so that payment information can be transmitted/received, and the format of the payment information itself. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others that were required as well.
Sigh. I guess you took that plunge from remaining silent to removing all doubt, friend.
And what do protocols have to do with implementations???
Why can't you just admit you don't know how it's implemented and that the wifi in this case is inconsequential?
Specifics as to the software implementation of one or more minimally used or tested e-wallet apps? You're right, I don't know the specifics, nor have I reviewed any code.
However, any network connectivity opens vectors to hack the device. Regardless of any secure storage (on the SIM or elsewhere) or OS restrictions on access, network connectivity opens the possibility that the phone can be pwned. Once the phone is compromised, all bets are off and it's possible that an e-wallet can be compromised.
I know. Smartphones have no vulnerabilities. Nor will there ever be any vulnerabilities. Please. You keep telling yourself that.
Since you know so much about this (clearly much more than someone you've never met and whose knowledge and experience you have no information about), please explain how you *know* that there are no vulnerabilities or malware on *any* smartphones that might compromise the data in one of many different e-wallet apps. Also, please explain how you *know* that there will *never* be such vulnerabilities or malware. I'm an empiricist. I have an open mind. Convince me. Better yet, show me where, when and by whom all e-wallet app code, APIs, and general security of smartphones have been evaluated and certified.
If you want my money, you'll have to reach into my pocket to take it. If you want my CC info, you could, presumably, use a device to read the NFC chip on a card in my pocket, but you'd need to be in close proximity to do so. That negates any remote exploit.
So. I'll say it again. I guess you're being deliberately obtuse.
Or perhaps I'm overly paranoid. Then again, I know there are folks out there that want to steal my (and anyone else's they can) financial information. Sigh.
ah, so you don't know how it works so your first response is to bury your head in the sand.
Understood, I'm dealing with a non-competent-thinker/emotional-reactionist.
I understand the difference between Near-Field Communications (NFC), cellular and IEEE 802.11 protocols. I guess you're being deliberately obtuse here? Whatever. You can disagree with me if you like. It's no skin off my nose. Good luck with that.
I think there are two main reasons why it does not work
1) because there's a duopoly on payments, Visa and Mastercard; add to that that everybody else wanted to control the mobile wallets, the operators, Google, the manufacturers, etc. so nobody did because they did not cooperate, they were greedy.
2) because it adds very little compared to what we have now, in other words, the added value is not enough to break the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.
If there were hundreds of payment processors and card issuers, the system would not be entrenched as each POS would need flexibility to handle all that diversity. In the current situation, the POS only handle Visa and/or Mastercard, so only them can push for changes, like they are doing with the "tracker cards", the RFID insecure cards they force everybody to use now.
They want everybody to use them not because they are better, but because they will be able to monetize them better by selling costumer tracking (those cards are beacons and you only need to slightly modify the "thief detectors" to track who enters and leaves a place, even if they pay with cash). They already sell your buying habits! Now they will also sell where you go and not buy!.
From a merchant perspective, it's not even a duopoly. In the US at least, Visa and Mastercard acceptance are jointly marketed to merchants.
Offering you the latest and greatest in mobility, internet bandwidth and speed, financial payments,... wait, why is the US so technologically backwards???
Because the corporations own everyone and everything. They tell you how they're going to screw you over and then tell you that you will love it. Most Americans don't even notice the difference. Sometimes I hate being American.
Technically this voids your credit card. Read the line above the signature panel, "Authorized signature - not valid unless signed."
The standard merchant agreement says that merchants are supposed to check the signature panel on the back of your card and compare it against the receipt. They are not allowed to ask for ID (or to impose minimum purchase amounts or fees for that matter) unless the signature does not match. If the card is not signed they're supposed to decline to use it.
Of course, very few merchants actually read the agreement they've signed, much less follow its rules. They do this at their own peril, for they're the ones on the hook for fraudulent transactions.
For a while, I used to ask store clerks which dead president's name they wanted me to use when signing the CC receipt. The saddest part was how many people said "Benjamin Franklin." Sigh.
I agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. But the CC companies don't need to switch off of chip-and-pin to support mobile wallets. Have you noticed that you can tap a chipped credit card against the new generation of POS devices to pay? If you can do that, you can tap an NFC phone as well. Ever noticed how the chip in your credit card looks a lot like a SIM? Not a coincidence, it's the same underlying Smart Card tech.
And about the malicious entities, this really isn't as big a problem as what your picturing. A wallet app is really just a UI. All the meat goes into your Secure Element. Your card info gets put in remotely by a trusted authority, and is read directly off the chip by a POS. Apps on your phone don't have access to it.
Very good. And when my phone is remotely hacked, all my info is in the hands of thieves and I won't even know it. If you want my cash, you'll have to take it out of my pocket. Also, when I want to purchase things anonymously, how exactly do I do that with my phone?
Do you really think they're going to switch off of that for something even less secure than a standard CC?
Sorry but I bought a 2800 dollar laptop with my CC that has no signature on the back and no PIN without the blink of an eye while I can't "charge" $5.56 worth of coffee and pastry to my Starbucks app without my PIN.
Which one is less secure again?
The one that's not wifi or cellular connected. Duh.
Please. This is a "solution" in search of a problem. And not even a good solution. All the CC companies in the US are (finally) being forced to implement chip-and-pin. Do you really think they're going to switch off of that for something even less secure than a standard CC? Not that they really care about security.
Besides, There are so many entities (not counting the malicious ones) tracking what goes on your smartphone, do you really want to trust your money to an app on one of these? If so, please use my app. It's complicated to set up, so please send me all your financial information and I'll get things going for you. You may notice some charges or emptying your bank accounts, but that just me making sure everything is working properly.
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with the consolidation of ISPs with content providers is that they have a vested interest in keeping upload speeds low, so that their customers can't compete with them. I would go farther than some of those commenting on this and suggest that content providers should not be allowed to own/operate ISPs or own the "last mile."
Those who own "the last mile," as well as ISPs (they should be different entities as well) should all be classified as "common carriers." Further, "last mile" owners should be required to provide (at reasonable cost) access to any/all ISPs that want to provide service to end-users.
Again, upload speeds should not be throttled. Obviously, those who want higher upload (or download) speeds can certainly pay for that service. Service bundles (TV/Phone/Internet) provide little benefit to end-users and often give incumbent monopolies customer lock-in. Give us Glass-Steagall for the Internet (I'd like it back in the financial industry too, but that's a whole other level of rip-off).
I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.
I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.
This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.
The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.
Interesting and valid points. Thank you. I don't believe we should rush into "solutions" until we understand the impact of those solutions. However, as you may recall, hundreds of thousands of people below 42nd street in Manhattan (due to the 14th street ConEd power facility failure) were without power for days, some for more than a week. The Battery Tunnel was closed for days, as were several subway lines whose tunnels below the East River were inundated as well.
As for me, I live at least 100 feet above sea level. During the height of Sandy, I looked at my window and there was water on my window sill! Terrifying stuff! I nearly had an MI. More seriously, many people lost many of their possessions and homes were destroyed. Many elderly/disabled people were trapped in their high-floor apartments for extended periods. Unless we take (considered -- as I said, your point is a good one) action, as sea levels rise, these sorts of problems will just get worse.
The science is telling us that anthropogenic impacts are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. We should try to find ways to reduce our impact, IMHO. What is more, even though these issues aren't immediately threatening, that doesn't mean we should just ignore them.
You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold.
Well done.
Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, I only called that specific AC small-minded and xenophobic. I rather imagined that he is a suburbanite, rather than a rural/exurb dweller. No stereotypes here. As you said, his was a "douchebag comment." My derision was for him alone.
I don't have issues with people who don't live in or don't like cities. I judge people on what they do and what they say, not on where they live. There's a lot to be said for living in rural areas. It's not the sort of life I want, but my preferences apply to me and I don't consider anyone to be "less than" anyone else.
All that said, I'm going to assume (yes, dangerous I know.:) ) that you figured that since I live in a city, that I think anyone who doesn't is an uneducated bumpkin (I think the word you used was "hick"). I know that's not true. The AC I responded to showed his bias and ignorance. I called him on it. That's it. My derision was strictly for him.
Yes, rural areas provide food to urban areas. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it. I'm not going to argue with you as to the value of cities. History makes a much better argument than I ever could. Feel free to disagree, I won't hold it against you.
Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??
Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.
Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.
What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?
Sea level rise would be much more catastrophic for NYC than frequent flooding. Much of NYC, especially Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are below, at, or just a few feet above sea level. Most of the infrastructure (electric, natural gas, telephone/telecom, steam -- yes steam, subways, etc. etc., etc.) is actually underground. During hurricaine Sandy, Significant swaths of NYC were flooded, leaving hundreds of thousands without power, some for weeks. A general sea level rise of even one meter would put much of NYC (as well as the rest of Long Island) underwater. Once that happens, the next big storm will kill thousands and leave much of the city uninhabitable. So much for NYC as the center of the world. The same is true for many other coastal cities -- Miami, Los Angeles, etc. New Orleans is just the beginning.
And forget about Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on and on and on.
We're looking at population dislocations from coastal/island areas in the hundreds of millions -- if not more than a billion people. This is going to be really bad. And we aren't doing anything worthwhile about it. I just hope I don't live long enough to see it.
Lets say an average person calls 100 different numbers over a two year period. One hop gets 100 people. Two hops gets 10,000. Three hops gets 1,000,000 people. That is for one person of interest who, in all likelihood, has nothing at all to do with terror attacks..
What is ironic is that the NSA isn't a real threat. Nobody gets dragged off in the night. However, there are real intel agencies which will be more than happy to make people disappear. Those are now running unchecked and unfettered now that the "good" (relative here) guys are under the microscope.
In fact, with NIST standards and kernel hardening (SELinux for example), they have done some good to keep the real bad guys out.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but people need to always know who to be worried versus ignored. For me, the NSA isn't on my list. Lots of people/organizations higher up on that (the top being the neighborhood meth-head looking to do a burglary to score some rock to feed his addiction.)
BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. There has been a long history of presidential administrations using the foreign intelligence security apparatus to spy on its enemies, real or imagined. The courts and Congress long took a dim view of this, but apparently they think it's okay now.
The NSA *may* have done some things to help us secure our systems, but they have the apparatus in place (and are using it, to what extent we don't really know) to spy on Americans. Even if (and that's a big 'if') the Obama administration isn't using those facilities to spy on Americans it sees as a threat, there's nothing to stop future administrations from doing so. Devil's advocate indeed.
Admit what, you just went from 4kt to 0.9 kt and are still incorrect in your math. Nothing can "fall from the moon", anything launched on ballistic trajectory from there will *lose* energy because of force of moon until object reaches pount (about 310,000km from earth) where earth's gravity will begin to accelerate it (and NOT at 9.8m/s^2 but nearly zero) Let me clue you in, your 1 ton object will strike with about a tenth of a kiloton of force, a one kt explosion will require a 10 ton object. see? it's a pointless expenditure of energy.
Actually, you're flat wrong. I should have been more explicit, but I thought I was dealing with someone who had even a little knowledge about this topic that wanted to have an informed discussion. I guess that's what happens when you assume.
Such a device (the payload, with an appropriate casing and attitude rockets for course adjustment) would be accelerated from space or from the moon via some sort of mass driver (coil/rail gun, linear motor, etc.) to accelerate the device out of the moon's gravitational field at six, eight or even ten Gs. Deep space or orbital launch would be even simpler and require less energy (not being in the moon's gravity well).
While such a weapon system has never been deployed, it has been studied, over the years, in various forms by both the US and the former USSR.
As such, you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just woefully uninformed. So enough of this. Have a nice day.
sorry, Heinlein screwed up the math, those kinetic weapons of some tons don't have nuclear-weapon type yield. such weapons would mostly annoy us and piss us off
Not exactly. A 1,000KG object falling from the moon (as an example), would generate a force of 3,753,633,945,600J (or 3.75 Kilotons of TNT equivalent). This is roughly 1/4 the energy of the atomic bomb ("Little Boy") dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. While the energy is dwarfed by modern nuclear weapons, it is still ~85 times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs.
I suspect that a 3.75 Kiloton blast would do a little more than annoy or piss us off. Especially if there were more than one.
Please. Check my calculations.
Okay. I checked my own calculations and I was wrong. That 1,000KG object would generate the equivalent of 897 tons of TNT. However, that's still 20 times more than the largest conventional bombs. And a lot more than, IMHO, we would consider just an annoyance. Especially if there are many such projectiles. What is more, why stop at 1,000KG? How about 10,000 (~9 Kilotons) or 1,000,000 (897 Kilotons)?
In any case, I admitted my mistake in calculation. Perhaps you should admit yours? Or not. That's up to you.
sorry, Heinlein screwed up the math, those kinetic weapons of some tons don't have nuclear-weapon type yield. such weapons would mostly annoy us and piss us off
Not exactly. A 1,000KG object falling from the moon (as an example), would generate a force of 3,753,633,945,600J (or 3.75 Kilotons of TNT equivalent). This is roughly 1/4 the energy of the atomic bomb ("Little Boy") dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. While the energy is dwarfed by modern nuclear weapons, it is still ~85 times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs.
I suspect that a 3.75 Kiloton blast would do a little more than annoy or piss us off. Especially if there were more than one.
Slashdot Mirror
If you directly assist someone in kidnapping, you are guilty. If you directly assist someone in murder, you are guilty.
If you directly assist someone in the spying and eventual torture or death of someone at the hands of a government you knew would do that ... by your reasoning your magically excused?
I'm simply saying that if you assist someone in the commission of something which would be a crime where your business is based, assisting them to do the same thing in another country doesn't change a damned thing.
Companies who knowingly sell these things to countries they know will abuse it are not suddenly absolved of being culpable for the things their products have been designed for.
Selling this stuff to these regimes is little different than being an art dealer for the Nazis, or selling munitions to Iran -- you know it's causing harm, but you're profiting off it. As a result, you should be subject to legal recourse.
And if your name is similar to someone who *might* do something the government doesn't like, you're guilty.
Yeah, you're just overly paranoid. Go take a look at how it works.
btw, I know you don't know anything because of the stupidity you are spouting. It's the general way any knowledgable person can spot the ignorant. I don't like to hand out information because babies with silver spoons in their mouths...
Really? Rather than engage, you resort to ad hominem and ad ignorantium attacks? Smooth. I'm so impressed.
Have a great day!
Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
Yes, he is.
I see. So I guess that means I'm dealing with a sociopath who has delusions of grandeur, eh? Lovely.
And what do protocols have to do with implementations???
You know, I just went back and read your post again. Are you serious? Do you even know what a protocol is? As I said, I'm not intimately familiar with payment systems technology, but I know enough to say that there are at least two protocols which must be adhered to by any implementation of a contactless payment processing system for the elements to communicate: some sort of communication protocol so that payment information can be transmitted/received, and the format of the payment information itself. It wouldn't surprise me if there were others that were required as well.
Sigh. I guess you took that plunge from remaining silent to removing all doubt, friend.
And what do protocols have to do with implementations???
Why can't you just admit you don't know how it's implemented and that the wifi in this case is inconsequential?
Specifics as to the software implementation of one or more minimally used or tested e-wallet apps? You're right, I don't know the specifics, nor have I reviewed any code.
However, any network connectivity opens vectors to hack the device. Regardless of any secure storage (on the SIM or elsewhere) or OS restrictions on access, network connectivity opens the possibility that the phone can be pwned. Once the phone is compromised, all bets are off and it's possible that an e-wallet can be compromised.
I know. Smartphones have no vulnerabilities. Nor will there ever be any vulnerabilities. Please. You keep telling yourself that.
Since you know so much about this (clearly much more than someone you've never met and whose knowledge and experience you have no information about), please explain how you *know* that there are no vulnerabilities or malware on *any* smartphones that might compromise the data in one of many different e-wallet apps. Also, please explain how you *know* that there will *never* be such vulnerabilities or malware. I'm an empiricist. I have an open mind. Convince me. Better yet, show me where, when and by whom all e-wallet app code, APIs, and general security of smartphones have been evaluated and certified.
If you want my money, you'll have to reach into my pocket to take it. If you want my CC info, you could, presumably, use a device to read the NFC chip on a card in my pocket, but you'd need to be in close proximity to do so. That negates any remote exploit.
So. I'll say it again. I guess you're being deliberately obtuse.
Or perhaps I'm overly paranoid. Then again, I know there are folks out there that want to steal my (and anyone else's they can) financial information. Sigh.
ah, so you don't know how it works so your first response is to bury your head in the sand.
Understood, I'm dealing with a non-competent-thinker/emotional-reactionist.
I understand the difference between Near-Field Communications (NFC), cellular and IEEE 802.11 protocols. I guess you're being deliberately obtuse here? Whatever. You can disagree with me if you like. It's no skin off my nose. Good luck with that.
I trust the security of my phone over my card. So fuck you, bitch.
How sweet you are. Did your mother teach you that? Or hasn't she gotten to that part yet? What are you, 14?
I think there are two main reasons why it does not work 1) because there's a duopoly on payments, Visa and Mastercard; add to that that everybody else wanted to control the mobile wallets, the operators, Google, the manufacturers, etc. so nobody did because they did not cooperate, they were greedy. 2) because it adds very little compared to what we have now, in other words, the added value is not enough to break the Visa/Mastercard duopoly. If there were hundreds of payment processors and card issuers, the system would not be entrenched as each POS would need flexibility to handle all that diversity. In the current situation, the POS only handle Visa and/or Mastercard, so only them can push for changes, like they are doing with the "tracker cards", the RFID insecure cards they force everybody to use now. They want everybody to use them not because they are better, but because they will be able to monetize them better by selling costumer tracking (those cards are beacons and you only need to slightly modify the "thief detectors" to track who enters and leaves a place, even if they pay with cash). They already sell your buying habits! Now they will also sell where you go and not buy!.
From a merchant perspective, it's not even a duopoly. In the US at least, Visa and Mastercard acceptance are jointly marketed to merchants.
US the greatest place on earth!
Offering you the latest and greatest in mobility, internet bandwidth and speed, financial payments,... wait, why is the US so technologically backwards???
Because the corporations own everyone and everything. They tell you how they're going to screw you over and then tell you that you will love it. Most Americans don't even notice the difference. Sometimes I hate being American.
Technically this voids your credit card. Read the line above the signature panel, "Authorized signature - not valid unless signed."
The standard merchant agreement says that merchants are supposed to check the signature panel on the back of your card and compare it against the receipt. They are not allowed to ask for ID (or to impose minimum purchase amounts or fees for that matter) unless the signature does not match. If the card is not signed they're supposed to decline to use it.
Of course, very few merchants actually read the agreement they've signed, much less follow its rules. They do this at their own peril, for they're the ones on the hook for fraudulent transactions.
For a while, I used to ask store clerks which dead president's name they wanted me to use when signing the CC receipt. The saddest part was how many people said "Benjamin Franklin." Sigh.
um, so you think NFC with pin is somehow less secure than... NFC with pin?
Yes. When NFC with PIN isn't on a device connected to cellular and/or WiFi networks. Or did you forget about that?
I agree that it's a solution in search of a problem. But the CC companies don't need to switch off of chip-and-pin to support mobile wallets. Have you noticed that you can tap a chipped credit card against the new generation of POS devices to pay? If you can do that, you can tap an NFC phone as well. Ever noticed how the chip in your credit card looks a lot like a SIM? Not a coincidence, it's the same underlying Smart Card tech.
And about the malicious entities, this really isn't as big a problem as what your picturing. A wallet app is really just a UI. All the meat goes into your Secure Element. Your card info gets put in remotely by a trusted authority, and is read directly off the chip by a POS. Apps on your phone don't have access to it.
Very good. And when my phone is remotely hacked, all my info is in the hands of thieves and I won't even know it. If you want my cash, you'll have to take it out of my pocket. Also, when I want to purchase things anonymously, how exactly do I do that with my phone?
Do you really think they're going to switch off of that for something even less secure than a standard CC? Sorry but I bought a 2800 dollar laptop with my CC that has no signature on the back and no PIN without the blink of an eye while I can't "charge" $5.56 worth of coffee and pastry to my Starbucks app without my PIN. Which one is less secure again?
The one that's not wifi or cellular connected. Duh.
Please. This is a "solution" in search of a problem. And not even a good solution. All the CC companies in the US are (finally) being forced to implement chip-and-pin. Do you really think they're going to switch off of that for something even less secure than a standard CC? Not that they really care about security.
Besides, There are so many entities (not counting the malicious ones) tracking what goes on your smartphone, do you really want to trust your money to an app on one of these? If so, please use my app. It's complicated to set up, so please send me all your financial information and I'll get things going for you. You may notice some charges or emptying your bank accounts, but that just me making sure everything is working properly.
It seems to me that one of the biggest problems with the consolidation of ISPs with content providers is that they have a vested interest in keeping upload speeds low, so that their customers can't compete with them. I would go farther than some of those commenting on this and suggest that content providers should not be allowed to own/operate ISPs or own the "last mile."
Those who own "the last mile," as well as ISPs (they should be different entities as well) should all be classified as "common carriers." Further, "last mile" owners should be required to provide (at reasonable cost) access to any/all ISPs that want to provide service to end-users.
Again, upload speeds should not be throttled. Obviously, those who want higher upload (or download) speeds can certainly pay for that service. Service bundles (TV/Phone/Internet) provide little benefit to end-users and often give incumbent monopolies customer lock-in. Give us Glass-Steagall for the Internet (I'd like it back in the financial industry too, but that's a whole other level of rip-off).
I work right on the water, in a location that's indicated on that map to have experienced over 4ft of inundation. Maybe those figures actually represent deviation from normal high tide and not actually inundation. While there was indeed flooding around here it didn't exceed 12" and only affected a few waterfront areas. Go a few hundred feet and there was no flooding at all. The flooding also didn't persist for the duration of the storm, instead receding once the tide went out.
I'm not suggesting that the rising sea level isn't a problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't the urgent issue it keeps being presented as. The rise is so gradual that people will almost certain adapt long before it could turn into a critical problem. As it stands, in a few residential neighborhoods affected by flooding some have moved out and others have taken measures to defend against flooding.
This is the sort of thing we're going to see increasingly around the world, and eventually some of these spots may be completely given up to the sea. However, for the most part it's not going to occur at a frantic pace that would pose a humanitarian nightmare. People will simply adapt or move.
The problem with some aspects of trying to take action now is that it's too soon to even know how we should be responding. It's the typical nonsense I face with management. They're so frantic to get started on a project, to do anything, that we end up wasting an inordinate amount of time and money simply fixing problems caused by rushing. And in many cases the original goals go unfulfilled anyway.
Interesting and valid points. Thank you. I don't believe we should rush into "solutions" until we understand the impact of those solutions. However, as you may recall, hundreds of thousands of people below 42nd street in Manhattan (due to the 14th street ConEd power facility failure) were without power for days, some for more than a week. The Battery Tunnel was closed for days, as were several subway lines whose tunnels below the East River were inundated as well.
As for me, I live at least 100 feet above sea level. During the height of Sandy, I looked at my window and there was water on my window sill! Terrifying stuff! I nearly had an MI. More seriously, many people lost many of their possessions and homes were destroyed. Many elderly/disabled people were trapped in their high-floor apartments for extended periods. Unless we take (considered -- as I said, your point is a good one) action, as sea levels rise, these sorts of problems will just get worse.
The science is telling us that anthropogenic impacts are increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. We should try to find ways to reduce our impact, IMHO. What is more, even though these issues aren't immediately threatening, that doesn't mean we should just ignore them.
You yourself call us small-minded and xenophobic. And then, as normal, give a grammer lesson to the "hick", fueling the stereotype that you hold. Well done.
Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, I only called that specific AC small-minded and xenophobic. I rather imagined that he is a suburbanite, rather than a rural/exurb dweller. No stereotypes here. As you said, his was a "douchebag comment." My derision was for him alone.
I don't have issues with people who don't live in or don't like cities. I judge people on what they do and what they say, not on where they live. There's a lot to be said for living in rural areas. It's not the sort of life I want, but my preferences apply to me and I don't consider anyone to be "less than" anyone else.
All that said, I'm going to assume (yes, dangerous I know. :) ) that you figured that since I live in a city, that I think anyone who doesn't is an uneducated bumpkin (I think the word you used was "hick"). I know that's not true. The AC I responded to showed his bias and ignorance. I called him on it. That's it. My derision was strictly for him.
Yes, rural areas provide food to urban areas. Thank you. I, for one, appreciate it. I'm not going to argue with you as to the value of cities. History makes a much better argument than I ever could. Feel free to disagree, I won't hold it against you.
Leaving aside Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on, so what your saying is the all of the real urban pest holes in the United States will finally be cleared out once and for all... and the down side is??
Throughout history, cities have been the engines of commerce, innovation and growth. I'm one of those urban pests (born and raised in a large city), as are fully half of the US population. Are you saying that half the population of the US should be put down as pests?
What I think you're really saying is that you don't like diversity and are somewhat xenophobic. Do you even have a valid passport? Have you ever traveled anywhere? I pity you your small-mindedness.
Also, just for the record, the word "your" is possessive (as in "This is your opinion"). "You're" is a contraction of "you are" (as in "...so what you're saying is..."). It's hard to take your opinion seriously, both because it's hateful and exclusionary, and because you're clearly not as smart as you think you are. That is all.
What if the climate changes and New York ends up with massive frequent flooding and all those extra people?
Sea level rise would be much more catastrophic for NYC than frequent flooding. Much of NYC, especially Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens are below, at, or just a few feet above sea level. Most of the infrastructure (electric, natural gas, telephone/telecom, steam -- yes steam, subways, etc. etc., etc.) is actually underground. During hurricaine Sandy, Significant swaths of NYC were flooded, leaving hundreds of thousands without power, some for weeks. A general sea level rise of even one meter would put much of NYC (as well as the rest of Long Island) underwater. Once that happens, the next big storm will kill thousands and leave much of the city uninhabitable. So much for NYC as the center of the world. The same is true for many other coastal cities -- Miami, Los Angeles, etc. New Orleans is just the beginning.
And forget about Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and on and on and on.
We're looking at population dislocations from coastal/island areas in the hundreds of millions -- if not more than a billion people. This is going to be really bad. And we aren't doing anything worthwhile about it. I just hope I don't live long enough to see it.
Lets say an average person calls 100 different numbers over a two year period. One hop gets 100 people. Two hops gets 10,000. Three hops gets 1,000,000 people. That is for one person of interest who, in all likelihood, has nothing at all to do with terror attacks..
There. FTFY.
Posting AC to be a devil's advocate here:
What is ironic is that the NSA isn't a real threat. Nobody gets dragged off in the night. However, there are real intel agencies which will be more than happy to make people disappear. Those are now running unchecked and unfettered now that the "good" (relative here) guys are under the microscope.
In fact, with NIST standards and kernel hardening (SELinux for example), they have done some good to keep the real bad guys out.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but people need to always know who to be worried versus ignored. For me, the NSA isn't on my list. Lots of people/organizations higher up on that (the top being the neighborhood meth-head looking to do a burglary to score some rock to feed his addiction.)
BZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing. There has been a long history of presidential administrations using the foreign intelligence security apparatus to spy on its enemies, real or imagined. The courts and Congress long took a dim view of this, but apparently they think it's okay now.
The NSA *may* have done some things to help us secure our systems, but they have the apparatus in place (and are using it, to what extent we don't really know) to spy on Americans. Even if (and that's a big 'if') the Obama administration isn't using those facilities to spy on Americans it sees as a threat, there's nothing to stop future administrations from doing so. Devil's advocate indeed.
Admit what, you just went from 4kt to 0.9 kt and are still incorrect in your math. Nothing can "fall from the moon", anything launched on ballistic trajectory from there will *lose* energy because of force of moon until object reaches pount (about 310,000km from earth) where earth's gravity will begin to accelerate it (and NOT at 9.8m/s^2 but nearly zero) Let me clue you in, your 1 ton object will strike with about a tenth of a kiloton of force, a one kt explosion will require a 10 ton object. see? it's a pointless expenditure of energy.
Actually, you're flat wrong. I should have been more explicit, but I thought I was dealing with someone who had even a little knowledge about this topic that wanted to have an informed discussion. I guess that's what happens when you assume.
Such a device (the payload, with an appropriate casing and attitude rockets for course adjustment) would be accelerated from space or from the moon via some sort of mass driver (coil/rail gun, linear motor, etc.) to accelerate the device out of the moon's gravitational field at six, eight or even ten Gs. Deep space or orbital launch would be even simpler and require less energy (not being in the moon's gravity well).
While such a weapon system has never been deployed, it has been studied, over the years, in various forms by both the US and the former USSR.
As such, you are either being deliberately obtuse or are just woefully uninformed. So enough of this. Have a nice day.
Anybody with the tech to go between star systems has the tech to throw large numbers of really big rocks at us.
Exactly my point. Thanks.
sorry, Heinlein screwed up the math, those kinetic weapons of some tons don't have nuclear-weapon type yield. such weapons would mostly annoy us and piss us off
Not exactly. A 1,000KG object falling from the moon (as an example), would generate a force of 3,753,633,945,600J (or 3.75 Kilotons of TNT equivalent). This is roughly 1/4 the energy of the atomic bomb ("Little Boy") dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. While the energy is dwarfed by modern nuclear weapons, it is still ~85 times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs.
I suspect that a 3.75 Kiloton blast would do a little more than annoy or piss us off. Especially if there were more than one.
Please. Check my calculations.
Okay. I checked my own calculations and I was wrong. That 1,000KG object would generate the equivalent of 897 tons of TNT. However, that's still 20 times more than the largest conventional bombs. And a lot more than, IMHO, we would consider just an annoyance. Especially if there are many such projectiles. What is more, why stop at 1,000KG? How about 10,000 (~9 Kilotons) or 1,000,000 (897 Kilotons)?
In any case, I admitted my mistake in calculation. Perhaps you should admit yours? Or not. That's up to you.
sorry, Heinlein screwed up the math, those kinetic weapons of some tons don't have nuclear-weapon type yield. such weapons would mostly annoy us and piss us off
Not exactly. A 1,000KG object falling from the moon (as an example), would generate a force of 3,753,633,945,600J (or 3.75 Kilotons of TNT equivalent). This is roughly 1/4 the energy of the atomic bomb ("Little Boy") dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. While the energy is dwarfed by modern nuclear weapons, it is still ~85 times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs.
I suspect that a 3.75 Kiloton blast would do a little more than annoy or piss us off. Especially if there were more than one.
Please. Check my calculations.