5% of a 4TB HDD that sells for USD$200 is roughly 200 GB = $10.
1.5% of a 4TB HDD that sells for USD$29,000 is roughly 60 GB = $425.
You mean 5% of the space size in GB is that.
Your math is wrong, because you are misinterpreting the statistics. A 1.5% SSD failure rate, with a small number
of disks, does not mean that "1.5% of the capacity" fails; if you purchased N 4TB SSD "that sells for 29k"; on
average N*1.5% Of those entire SSD drives fail; and if you purchased N 4 TB HDDs that sell for $200,
N*5% of those entire HDDs fail.
Due to I/O constraints; when you use HDDs, you don't get to use all your total space, before performance degrades to unacceptable levels, and you have to buy more HDDs; furthermore, all those extra HDDs consume a lot more power than SSDs. The $/IOP is not attractive for HDDs: the vast majority of computer users do not need 4TB HDDs; and will use
100 to 150GB TOPS.
Therefore: SSDs look a lot more attractive, when you discount, or forget the existence of the portion of the capacity
that the user cannot use due to performance constraints, or will not use -- due to not needing the space.
Last I checked; you cannot go to Amazon, Newegg or your local supermarket and buy a 200GB hard drive for $10 It is not an option; the least cost new HDD you can pick up is about 60 bucks. However, you definitely can go to Newegg, and buy a new 150GB SSD for about $250.
Also, the Crucial M500 1TB SSD is $600. 4 times that is $2400, not $30,000.
4TBs are for archival purposes, where the hard drive will be powered off most of the time, anyways.
The failure rate of 3 TB and 4 TB HDDs is probably much higher than the 5% average, due to the tighter
mechnical tolerances and higher density encoding methods required.
I believe the 5% figure applies to 1.5TB disks.
Storing 140 gigabytes a day is going to be expensive with any cloud service; you will essentially be using 4 Terabytes per month in bandwidth; as well as a lot of disk storage --- cloud providers charge dearly for this.
You might be better off getting your local network's connection upgraded. Obviously; this has benefits beyond merely offloading storage.
We're now thinking the customer's workstation will sync the data with the cloud, and we can automate pulling the data during off hours so we won't encounter congestion for analysis.
If you are pulling data off-hours anyways; perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a local server as close as possible to the point that data is being gathered, receive the data, and handle sending the data to you --- E.g. "collect the data on-site" right by the place it's being gathered.
This should help with the end-to-end congestion thing.
That isn't a failure mode, that is a wear out mode. NAND flash naturally wears itself out into the state where its state can no longer be changed by controller. The drive will remain perfectly readable because reading process is different from writing process.
That would be nice.... in practice it wears itself out into a state, where some bits get stuck in the wrong position, or fade to another state, and the rate of bit errors begins to increase exponentially
In other words; with SSD devices, wear out does not affect only writes.
With a possible exception of some controllers, which might have a safety mechanism to anticipate when wear-out should begin to occur, and jot something on the controller or blow a fuse in order to shut off the write capability, before the data is damaged.
Perhaps you didn't know that drives do one thing and only one thing. You feed them a block of data and an address and tell it to write it, or you feed them an address and tell it to read it.
You should do more research, as many SSDs are self-decrypting.
I do not like this one bit, but it/does/ address a potential issue with SSDs in regards to data destruction (Tools such as Gutman wipe, or a DBAN bootable CD do not work properly with a SSD; because repeatedly writing to the same "sector" does not provide any assurance of data destruction with a SSD, unlike with a magnetic drive)
2. How is this key stored internally? Is it itself encrypted? Using what algorithm?
a. We do not disclose the internal details of how the key is stored in order to prevent security issues, but we do disclose it is stored in the flash memory.
Modern drives for the last five years at least, have calibration factors for platter/head packs on the EEPROM on the controller board.
If it's an EEPROM chip; then that means... in principle, you could capture a dump of the EEPROM content from the old board, and then erase the EEPROM on the replacement board, and use a programmer to reload the old content
There's the operative phrase. RAID is for systems where you can't have or don't want an hour of downtime while restoring from a backup.
That applies to my home workstation. I would rather not have 5 minutes of downtime; with the possible exception of the sort of natural disaster that happens once every 100 or 1000 years or so.
A mirrored pair of drives IS a backup.
It's just an operational backup of every bit right beside a partner copy of the bit in another disk drive package.
The backup provided by drive mirroring is useful in many respects for reducing the impact of a hardware failure; however, there are many possible correlated failures that will affect both disk drives simultaneously: or enable a failure to spread.
There are stronger types of backups you should have; and it is most cost effective to make sure you have the strongest kind of backup, a good offsite backup with a fairly good retention period and periodic verification of restorability, as top priority: before you start planning the additional weaker kind of backups you should have --- such as a local backup on separate media (to speed up restore times and recovery, for local mishaps, by allowing you to avoid taking a few hours drive to go visit your offsite location) ------ and then synchronous mirroring, the weakest kind of backup, but with the Shortest possible delay restore time, for the incidents it can help with
(The data's already on the media, duh.... you just need to insert an additional drive later to repair the synchronous mirroring arrangement).
I'm not nearly as much of a believer in RAID for the home environment. If you (accidentally) delete something on one drive it's gone from both.
This is where copy-on-write snapshots come in as in zfs snapshot pool/dataset@2013-09-11-0001 type stuff.
Daily rsync still doesn't address latent corruption that gets discovered a long time later --- the data corruption propagates to the backup.
On the other hand.... a filesystem with copy on write snapshots and filesystem level block checksums address that
For bonus points.... use a setup that can do asynchronous replication or transfer of snapshots with minimal network usage... ala zfs send and zfs recv
Because all the local backups in the world are great for restores --- but horrible for disaster recovery: a natural disaster can take out an entire building, and of course.... all the disk drives in a RAID array
Does it really make a difference if those on-premise solutions are _also_ back-doored?
Backdooring a product that is already sold is harder -- it requires a patch.
Also; I don't think the NSA can legally do it.
The NSA and the government is empowered to require service providers to hand over information, or allow the communications going through the service provider to be tapped.
There's no legal way that the NSA can require a software company to publish a backdoored version of a commercial product that is already on the market.
Also; a backdoor present in the on-premise product could be detected by users through reverse engineering and network security monitoring.
It was not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.
You are a flagrant liar. This is going into my book of all-time favorite quotes:
mvdwege: You're wrong, because You're an idiot.
Me: Anyone who has to stoop so low, to an ad hominem remark or "criticism against the person", has no leg to stand on.
mvdwege: It was not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.
Everything I have stated can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources
If you're so confident of that, then why didn't you bother to do so?
There are plenty of wrong things that can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources.
Hell; there are peer-reviewed articles showing humans have ESP.
And I can show you verified sources suggesting man-made CO2 is not a driver of global warming.
The theory that humans cause global warming cannot be taken as a serious theory, until it is shown in a reliable manner, using basic science: that does not require a stretch of the imagination, or a more complicated explanation of a phenomenon than necessary -- that human activity, and not possibly anything more common and widespread in nature, is a predominant source of climate change.
It's not necessary to come up with the complicated explanation that these human activities relate to climate change; when much simpler more believable explanations are available.
That's an issue.... but at least Microsoft still offers On-Premise server solutions.
Google doesn't have an on-premise version of Google Apps that you can purchase,
download, and deploy in your own datacenter; without pushing your data resources out to the cloud where they are easy pickings for the Three-letter-agencies.
You'll notice that Microsoft is not there. I don't think they have been unfairly maligned.
With Ballmer at the helm; upper management hasn't even realized yet that there is this Snowden thing, and that the debacle is a threat to their future business. It hurts Google, so they see it as a win for their services -- which they are always claiming protect your privacy better... remember the whole Don't get Scroogled campaign?
When MS catches up and realizes about the Snowden thing; they'll probably wait until Google releases data to launch their next campaign showing how Google/Yahoo are allegedly "in bed with the feds"
This is definitive proof that you have lost the argument. Anyone who has to stoop so low, to an ad hominem remark or "criticism against the person", has no leg to stand on.
The human-made factor in the current climate change is a measurable, empirical fact.
Anyone who truly believes in finding the truth, and understands what science is all about; should know that with science there is no such thing as a synthesized proposition that is "measurable empirical fact"; all measurements have a degree of uncertainty. The only definitive facts are mathematical laws, within a system of axioms; which reside outside physics.
For those who are interested, this is the chain of causality:
This is a proposed chain of causality; but it is not proven as to the historical CO2 concentrations, or mean temperature rising; the pieces just fit, and it sounds like a good story: that does not mean the story as a whole is true or relevant.
The C13/C14 ratio is also not definitive proof about the reason for the presence of CO2; or the hypothesis that the concentration has changed to a degree that is significant.
That is: it is not proven that CO2 concentration would not increase similarly over sufficient time or very similarly in the long term: if fossil fuels were not being combusted. There may very well be some circumstances where the higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 cause the rate of natural concentration increase to decrease ----- that is, less fossil-fuel produced CO2 feeds photosynthesis at a lower density/rate; resulting in still a steady state with CO2 gradual concentration increase over time (with no fossil fuels being burnt).
the CO2 hypothesis is over a century old, and all the opponents have produced against it is think-tank sponsored media smears.
It doesn't matter. If you propose a scientific theory, the burden of proof rests with you to show how it is actually a theory --- that is how it can be tested, and under which conditions you could show it to be false. The "Human generated CO2 causes global warming" hypothesis, cannot realistically be falsified; therefore, it is more speculation than science -- and is also more snakeoil than legitimate theory.
There is much more legitimate science supporting evolution than global warming, and look how hotly evolution is contested....
But the loss of sea-ice is at most measured over the last 30 years. So therefore by your statements, the apparent loss of Arctic sea ice cannot be proven to be related to climate change, whether natural or not.
I can't dispute that. I agree that the apparent loss of arctic sea ice over a short amount of time is no proof of human-induced climate change.
It can be argued, that it suggests a "shorter term" climate change; which is not what the global warming proposition is about.
I don't intend to make an argument either way that climate change is or is not occuring; or that it is or is not being caused by humans.
My only objective at this point is to point out and reject flawwed thinking and flawwed arguments.
To do that; it is not necessary that I draw any conclusion whatsoever about whether or not global warming happens, or whether or not it is human-induced; only that the most "convincing" arguments by both sides are without merit.
For all they care, the ice cap could return to the extent of 1980 wthin a couple of years and all they'd say would be:
See, an extreme weather event! This proves climate change is true!
No. Climate is the mean value of a long series of datapoints observed over a long period of time.
Any one datapoint can vary up to several standard deviations from the mean, without affecting whether climate change is occuring or not.
Climate is by definition the long term pattern.
Climate change is a change in the long term pattern as time progresses.
Therefore: no observation of a single datapoint is capable of saying much at all about the climate.
Observing a massive loss of ice or massive increase in ice one year is neither capable of proving, and also not capable of disproving climate change.
Furthermore; we know that climate change naturally occurs --- that is, there are natural cycles such as Milankovitch cycles; precession of earth's orbit, variation of Earth's tilt naturally effect climate over long periods of time.
There may be numerous things that contribute to natural climate changes.
The whole global warming argument; is there is some non-natural, or human created factors perturbing the natural climate changes that have and are occuring; because some correlation might have been observed with rising temperatures over time, and human development: measured from ice core samples.
This is already highly speculative; even relying on long-term data, that human activity has significantly accelerated or altered the natural climate change.
The trouble is: we don't fully understand what the natural change is, therefore: what mechanism allows us to measure how much humans supposedly affected it?
If it's so hard to show climate change based on long term data, then it's nigh impossible to infer ANYTHING from datapoints about what happened during 1 year.... there's no reason 2013 is a magic year where you can take an observation capable of showing that climate change isn't happening; it's simply not true that you can observe what happens in 2013, and infer from that any fact about climate change.
One, two, three, even 4 or 5 years in isolation does not establish a new climate pattern.
I could see this taking off around college campuses if they offered the service for technical books. If they offered math, science, engineering ect... they could have every student on campus paying ten dollars a month for a year.
The academic publishing companies and authors would never go for this.
Unless they have a trick up their sleeves that lets them use the content without special permission or requires content providers to license in a scalable way;
the $200+ shiny new edition college textbooks are not likely to wind up there.
The law certainly favors public libraries, in that they don't need to negotiate anything with any content provider.
Could a public library scan a book, and loan it out online for virtual access using a reader application, as long as they restrict access to one patron at a time?
Even if it was used legitimately, how does an "EXPIRED" plate tell the officer the plate number to write you at ticket?
They don't need your license plate number to write a ticket. By law your vehicle's VIN number must be visible from outside your car, in a certain prescribed place; at all times.
They can also display the lic# number below "EXPIRED"; or in the bar code that the police officer will scan, before the ticket is printed out or e-mailed to you.
It seems pretty clear that John Gilmore has clearly identified what's going on. He spotted many instances of NSA-directed sabotage,and has called it out.
Does he have prove that it's intentional sabotage and not overengineering?
but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?
No, because the prohibition was too short-lived. It wasn't a full-fledged "war on alcohol", and the enforcers didn't get elevated above the law.
Even so... we have speakeasies today... Raves I believe they call them; and they don't even need false doors.
You're allowed to make products or sell services that might someday wind up facilitating a crime; As long as the product/service has real legitimate purposes, AND you have no reason to suspect that a specific customer you are selling to has criminal intent.
Even if you do personally suspect that some customer might intend a criminal act; you might not be able to legally refuse service or call the cops -- due to anti-discrimination laws; unless you have very strong evidence.
Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...
I think that's the stick they hold over the phone companies If they refuse a warrentless request to deliver phone records or tap someone's line; they face arrest on such trumped up charges similar to that logic.
"Oh well, if you do this, this, and this, they can't get you!"
If he insisted on consulting with an attorney when requested to install surveillance cams; he probably would have been alright.
He could have taken some steps which would prevent them from incriminating them.
If all else failed; he could organize an armed militia of concerned citizens to protect him and prevent government malevolence.
With adequate preparations; he could have fled to an underground bunker in some protected remote location that they'd never find to live out the rest of his days.
Slashdot Mirror
5% of a 4TB HDD that sells for USD$200 is roughly 200 GB = $10.
1.5% of a 4TB HDD that sells for USD$29,000 is roughly 60 GB = $425.
You mean 5% of the space size in GB is that.
Your math is wrong, because you are misinterpreting the statistics. A 1.5% SSD failure rate, with a small number of disks, does not mean that "1.5% of the capacity" fails; if you purchased N 4TB SSD "that sells for 29k"; on average N*1.5% Of those entire SSD drives fail; and if you purchased N 4 TB HDDs that sell for $200, N*5% of those entire HDDs fail.
Due to I/O constraints; when you use HDDs, you don't get to use all your total space, before performance degrades to unacceptable levels, and you have to buy more HDDs; furthermore, all those extra HDDs consume a lot more power than SSDs. The $/IOP is not attractive for HDDs: the vast majority of computer users do not need 4TB HDDs; and will use 100 to 150GB TOPS.
Therefore: SSDs look a lot more attractive, when you discount, or forget the existence of the portion of the capacity that the user cannot use due to performance constraints, or will not use -- due to not needing the space.
Last I checked; you cannot go to Amazon, Newegg or your local supermarket and buy a 200GB hard drive for $10 It is not an option; the least cost new HDD you can pick up is about 60 bucks. However, you definitely can go to Newegg, and buy a new 150GB SSD for about $250.
Also, the Crucial M500 1TB SSD is $600. 4 times that is $2400, not $30,000.
4TBs are for archival purposes, where the hard drive will be powered off most of the time, anyways. The failure rate of 3 TB and 4 TB HDDs is probably much higher than the 5% average, due to the tighter mechnical tolerances and higher density encoding methods required. I believe the 5% figure applies to 1.5TB disks.
This is the part where the original investors cash out and leave the smoldering rubble with regular investors.
Well... it is a valid exit strategy. Just like "get bought out by Apple, Google, or Microsoft" is an exit strategy.
I don't see Twitter as a smoldering rubble though.....
Storing 140 gigabytes a day is going to be expensive with any cloud service; you will essentially be using 4 Terabytes per month in bandwidth; as well as a lot of disk storage --- cloud providers charge dearly for this.
You might be better off getting your local network's connection upgraded. Obviously; this has benefits beyond merely offloading storage.
We're now thinking the customer's workstation will sync the data with the cloud, and we can automate pulling the data during off hours so we won't encounter congestion for analysis.
If you are pulling data off-hours anyways; perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a local server as close as possible to the point that data is being gathered, receive the data, and handle sending the data to you --- E.g. "collect the data on-site" right by the place it's being gathered.
This should help with the end-to-end congestion thing.
attorney general’s statement showed. “Criminal charges are unwarranted and legally baseless,”
Of course they won't prosecure.
Professional courtesy.
From one criminal to another. The big banks were also afforded this courtesy, of arbitrary refusal to prosecute by the US AG.
I thought real deities just ran it through a stego algorithm or Base64 encoder, and posted it on Slashdot? :)
That isn't a failure mode, that is a wear out mode. NAND flash naturally wears itself out into the state where its state can no longer be changed by controller. The drive will remain perfectly readable because reading process is different from writing process.
That would be nice.... in practice it wears itself out into a state, where some bits get stuck in the wrong position, or fade to another state, and the rate of bit errors begins to increase exponentially
In other words; with SSD devices, wear out does not affect only writes. With a possible exception of some controllers, which might have a safety mechanism to anticipate when wear-out should begin to occur, and jot something on the controller or blow a fuse in order to shut off the write capability, before the data is damaged.
Perhaps you didn't know that drives do one thing and only one thing. You feed them a block of data and an address and tell it to write it, or you feed them an address and tell it to read it.
You should do more research, as many SSDs are self-decrypting.
I do not like this one bit, but it /does/ address a potential issue with SSDs in regards to data destruction (Tools such as Gutman wipe, or a DBAN bootable CD do not work properly with a SSD; because repeatedly writing to the same "sector" does not provide any assurance of data destruction with a SSD, unlike with a magnetic drive)
SSD controllers store the keys internally, not on the external flash.
SSD Key storage
Modern drives for the last five years at least, have calibration factors for platter/head packs on the EEPROM on the controller board.
If it's an EEPROM chip; then that means... in principle, you could capture a dump of the EEPROM content from the old board, and then erase the EEPROM on the replacement board, and use a programmer to reload the old content
There's the operative phrase. RAID is for systems where you can't have or don't want an hour of downtime while restoring from a backup.
That applies to my home workstation. I would rather not have 5 minutes of downtime; with the possible exception of the sort of natural disaster that happens once every 100 or 1000 years or so.
A mirrored pair of drives IS a backup. It's just an operational backup of every bit right beside a partner copy of the bit in another disk drive package.
The backup provided by drive mirroring is useful in many respects for reducing the impact of a hardware failure; however, there are many possible correlated failures that will affect both disk drives simultaneously: or enable a failure to spread.
There are stronger types of backups you should have; and it is most cost effective to make sure you have the strongest kind of backup, a good offsite backup with a fairly good retention period and periodic verification of restorability, as top priority: before you start planning the additional weaker kind of backups you should have --- such as a local backup on separate media (to speed up restore times and recovery, for local mishaps, by allowing you to avoid taking a few hours drive to go visit your offsite location) ------ and then synchronous mirroring, the weakest kind of backup, but with the Shortest possible delay restore time, for the incidents it can help with (The data's already on the media, duh.... you just need to insert an additional drive later to repair the synchronous mirroring arrangement).
I'm not nearly as much of a believer in RAID for the home environment. If you (accidentally) delete something on one drive it's gone from both.
This is where copy-on-write snapshots come in as in zfs snapshot pool/dataset@2013-09-11-0001
type stuff.
Daily rsync still doesn't address latent corruption that gets discovered a long time later --- the data corruption propagates to the backup.
On the other hand.... a filesystem with copy on write snapshots and filesystem level block checksums address that
For bonus points.... use a setup that can do asynchronous replication or transfer of snapshots with minimal network usage... ala zfs send and zfs recv
Because all the local backups in the world are great for restores --- but horrible for disaster recovery: a natural disaster can take out an entire building, and of course.... all the disk drives in a RAID array
Does it really make a difference if those on-premise solutions are _also_ back-doored?
Backdooring a product that is already sold is harder -- it requires a patch.
Also; I don't think the NSA can legally do it.
The NSA and the government is empowered to require service providers to hand over information, or allow the communications going through the service provider to be tapped.
There's no legal way that the NSA can require a software company to publish a backdoored version of a commercial product that is already on the market.
Also; a backdoor present in the on-premise product could be detected by users through reverse engineering and network security monitoring.
It was not an ad hominem, just a statement of fact.
You are a flagrant liar. This is going into my book of all-time favorite quotes:
Everything I have stated can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources
If you're so confident of that, then why didn't you bother to do so?
There are plenty of wrong things that can be backed up by scientific, verifiable sources. Hell; there are peer-reviewed articles showing humans have ESP.
And I can show you verified sources suggesting man-made CO2 is not a driver of global warming.
The theory that humans cause global warming cannot be taken as a serious theory, until it is shown in a reliable manner, using basic science: that does not require a stretch of the imagination, or a more complicated explanation of a phenomenon than necessary -- that human activity, and not possibly anything more common and widespread in nature, is a predominant source of climate change.
It's not necessary to come up with the complicated explanation that these human activities relate to climate change; when much simpler more believable explanations are available.
That's an issue.... but at least Microsoft still offers On-Premise server solutions. Google doesn't have an on-premise version of Google Apps that you can purchase, download, and deploy in your own datacenter; without pushing your data resources out to the cloud where they are easy pickings for the Three-letter-agencies.
You'll notice that Microsoft is not there. I don't think they have been unfairly maligned.
With Ballmer at the helm; upper management hasn't even realized yet that there is this Snowden thing, and that the debacle is a threat to their future business. It hurts Google, so they see it as a win for their services -- which they are always claiming protect your privacy better... remember the whole Don't get Scroogled campaign?
When MS catches up and realizes about the Snowden thing; they'll probably wait until Google releases data to launch their next campaign showing how Google/Yahoo are allegedly "in bed with the feds"
You're an idiot.
This is definitive proof that you have lost the argument. Anyone who has to stoop so low, to an ad hominem remark or "criticism against the person", has no leg to stand on.
The human-made factor in the current climate change is a measurable, empirical fact.
Anyone who truly believes in finding the truth, and understands what science is all about; should know that with science there is no such thing as a synthesized proposition that is "measurable empirical fact"; all measurements have a degree of uncertainty. The only definitive facts are mathematical laws, within a system of axioms; which reside outside physics.
For those who are interested, this is the chain of causality:
This is a proposed chain of causality; but it is not proven as to the historical CO2 concentrations, or mean temperature rising; the pieces just fit, and it sounds like a good story: that does not mean the story as a whole is true or relevant.
The C13/C14 ratio is also not definitive proof about the reason for the presence of CO2; or the hypothesis that the concentration has changed to a degree that is significant.
That is: it is not proven that CO2 concentration would not increase similarly over sufficient time or very similarly in the long term: if fossil fuels were not being combusted. There may very well be some circumstances where the higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 cause the rate of natural concentration increase to decrease ----- that is, less fossil-fuel produced CO2 feeds photosynthesis at a lower density/rate; resulting in still a steady state with CO2 gradual concentration increase over time (with no fossil fuels being burnt).
the CO2 hypothesis is over a century old, and all the opponents have produced against it is think-tank sponsored media smears.
It doesn't matter. If you propose a scientific theory, the burden of proof rests with you to show how it is actually a theory --- that is how it can be tested, and under which conditions you could show it to be false. The "Human generated CO2 causes global warming" hypothesis, cannot realistically be falsified; therefore, it is more speculation than science -- and is also more snakeoil than legitimate theory.
There is much more legitimate science supporting evolution than global warming, and look how hotly evolution is contested....
But the loss of sea-ice is at most measured over the last 30 years. So therefore by your statements, the apparent loss of Arctic sea ice cannot be proven to be related to climate change, whether natural or not.
I can't dispute that. I agree that the apparent loss of arctic sea ice over a short amount of time is no proof of human-induced climate change.
It can be argued, that it suggests a "shorter term" climate change; which is not what the global warming proposition is about.
I don't intend to make an argument either way that climate change is or is not occuring; or that it is or is not being caused by humans.
My only objective at this point is to point out and reject flawwed thinking and flawwed arguments.
To do that; it is not necessary that I draw any conclusion whatsoever about whether or not global warming happens, or whether or not it is human-induced; only that the most "convincing" arguments by both sides are without merit.
For all they care, the ice cap could return to the extent of 1980 wthin a couple of years and all they'd say would be:
See, an extreme weather event! This proves climate change is true!
No. Climate is the mean value of a long series of datapoints observed over a long period of time.
Any one datapoint can vary up to several standard deviations from the mean, without affecting whether climate change is occuring or not.
Climate is by definition the long term pattern.
Climate change is a change in the long term pattern as time progresses. Therefore: no observation of a single datapoint is capable of saying much at all about the climate.
Observing a massive loss of ice or massive increase in ice one year is neither capable of proving, and also not capable of disproving climate change.
Furthermore; we know that climate change naturally occurs --- that is, there are natural cycles such as Milankovitch cycles; precession of earth's orbit, variation of Earth's tilt naturally effect climate over long periods of time.
There may be numerous things that contribute to natural climate changes.
The whole global warming argument; is there is some non-natural, or human created factors perturbing the natural climate changes that have and are occuring; because some correlation might have been observed with rising temperatures over time, and human development: measured from ice core samples.
This is already highly speculative; even relying on long-term data, that human activity has significantly accelerated or altered the natural climate change.
The trouble is: we don't fully understand what the natural change is, therefore: what mechanism allows us to measure how much humans supposedly affected it?
If it's so hard to show climate change based on long term data, then it's nigh impossible to infer ANYTHING from datapoints about what happened during 1 year.... there's no reason 2013 is a magic year where you can take an observation capable of showing that climate change isn't happening; it's simply not true that you can observe what happens in 2013, and infer from that any fact about climate change.
One, two, three, even 4 or 5 years in isolation does not establish a new climate pattern.
We're talking about 100-year trends here.
I could see this taking off around college campuses if they offered the service for technical books. If they offered math, science, engineering ect... they could have every student on campus paying ten dollars a month for a year.
The academic publishing companies and authors would never go for this.
Unless they have a trick up their sleeves that lets them use the content without special permission or requires content providers to license in a scalable way; the $200+ shiny new edition college textbooks are not likely to wind up there.
The law certainly favors public libraries, in that they don't need to negotiate anything with any content provider.
Could a public library scan a book, and loan it out online for virtual access using a reader application, as long as they restrict access to one patron at a time?
Even if it was used legitimately, how does an "EXPIRED" plate tell the officer the plate number to write you at ticket?
They don't need your license plate number to write a ticket. By law your vehicle's VIN number must be visible from outside your car, in a certain prescribed place; at all times.
They can also display the lic# number below "EXPIRED"; or in the bar code that the police officer will scan, before the ticket is printed out or e-mailed to you.
It seems pretty clear that John Gilmore has clearly identified what's going on. He spotted many instances of NSA-directed sabotage,and has called it out.
Does he have prove that it's intentional sabotage and not overengineering?
but you seriously think the guys that built fake walls for speakeasies back during prohibition weren't under similar circumstances?
No, because the prohibition was too short-lived. It wasn't a full-fledged "war on alcohol", and the enforcers didn't get elevated above the law.
Even so... we have speakeasies today... Raves I believe they call them; and they don't even need false doors.
You're allowed to make products or sell services that might someday wind up facilitating a crime; As long as the product/service has real legitimate purposes, AND you have no reason to suspect that a specific customer you are selling to has criminal intent.
Even if you do personally suspect that some customer might intend a criminal act; you might not be able to legally refuse service or call the cops -- due to anti-discrimination laws; unless you have very strong evidence.
Drug dealers uses cell phones to communicate. Following your flawless logic we should incarcerate every executives of Sprint, AT&T, MetroPCS and all...
I think that's the stick they hold over the phone companies If they refuse a warrentless request to deliver phone records or tap someone's line; they face arrest on such trumped up charges similar to that logic.
"Oh well, if you do this, this, and this, they can't get you!"
If he insisted on consulting with an attorney when requested to install surveillance cams; he probably would have been alright. He could have taken some steps which would prevent them from incriminating them.
If all else failed; he could organize an armed militia of concerned citizens to protect him and prevent government malevolence.
With adequate preparations; he could have fled to an underground bunker in some protected remote location that they'd never find to live out the rest of his days.