It's not super secret. It's not really secret at all.
It's a fairly reasonable approach, considering that any mechanism that you could use to trick Google's new IP-based system you could have used earlier to simply download and use the software. Have you downloaded Google software before? Did you see where you had to provide documentation that proved that you weren't from Iran?
Anyone with reasonable technical knowhow or decent connections can circumvent export restrictions for downloadable software.
Besides seriously damaging BitTorrent, this doesn't help you if they list peers on the tracker you're using. To be fair, they don't need to be associated with Comcast to do that.
From a legal standpoint, your IP being on a tracker's list is probably only worth them sending you threatening letters demanding a payoff. But then, IANAL, and you probably don't want to deal with that anyway.
"Dark matter" isn't really a name for a particular kind of matter with known properties. Some observations about gravitational forces don't work out quite right, as if there was a bunch of matter that we can't see. We don't really know any properties of it other than that it has mass and is otherwise undetectable (so far). Hence, "dark matter".
You're at the start of a good argument for how to meaningfully measure temperature. Not surprisingly, this has been studied in substantial detail.
One thing you can do, of course, is to make a large grid of temperature probes, measure temperature with them, and then test your interpolation methods with iteratively coarser samples. That is, if you have an NxN grid of probes, make a data set of an (N/2)x(N/2) grid of probes (dropping data from 3/4 of your probes), a (N/4)x(N/4) grid of probes, etc. Apply your interpolation method to these and see how rapidly your averages converge.
There exists no way of doing measurements that are truely continuous in space; all measurement methods have some spatial resolution. Satellite-based temperature measurements have a much finer resolution than ground-based measurements.
And in another analogy he compares a 0.06% change in your weight form 175.0 lbs to 175.1 lbs over a decade to a 0.6% increase in global temperature from the mean of around 57.563 F to 57.923 F.
From 57.563 F to 57.923 F is an increase of 0.07%. You can't use 0 F as a zero point for percent increase, as Fahrenheit isn't a zero-based temperature scale. I converted to Kelvin. You could equally use Rankine, but that's unacceptably evil.
It's usually not particularly meaningful to talk about percentage increases in temperature.
To be fair, it's also not particularly meaningful to talk about percentage increases in body weight.
A more reasonable but still volatile wager would be to bet that the global temperature averaged over the next 10 years is higher than the global temperature averaged over the past 10 years.
Perhaps you can appreciate that the way we know that there are things like N-year glacial cycles is that people studied temperature proxies that go back some kN years (k>1). Vostok goes back 400 kyr. Sediment measurements go back some 5 million years.
In short, no. That doesn't change Earth's albedo nearly as much as you might think, and changing Earth's albedo doesn't affect the temperature by much.
Aside from your incorrect comments about statistical significance and the insinuation that scientists aren't fully aware that they're studying a system with a very long history...
Yes, nobody thinks we'll push the world into a state that is entirely anathema to it. It's simply that we're pushing the world into a state different from that we find particularly convenient and have come to depend on. Considering that it is humans that like the climatological state and also humans changing it, I don't think you can call it particularly egotistical.
You can analyze it yourself. It's just the NASA GISS data. They use a particular averaging function to compute an estimated global average temperature, and they use the same function every year.
To meet OP's requirements, number of vulnerabilities doesn't really matter. All systems have some vulnerabilities. With few exceptions, they're not theoretical vulnerabilities, either -- they're actively exploited. So regardless of the device people use, it will be the case that they are using a device that is open to attack.
That people are (a) running devices that are open to attack, and (b) are able to connect such devices to any Pentagon network, is seriously pathetic.
With the current security landscape, this boils down, essentially, to: (a) People are using computing devices (b) Some computers are able to connect to the Pentagon network
Slashdot Mirror
It's not super secret. It's not really secret at all.
It's a fairly reasonable approach, considering that any mechanism that you could use to trick Google's new IP-based system you could have used earlier to simply download and use the software. Have you downloaded Google software before? Did you see where you had to provide documentation that proved that you weren't from Iran?
Anyone with reasonable technical knowhow or decent connections can circumvent export restrictions for downloadable software.
Either that or NBC was just buttering up the public the the idea of a cable company owning a tv studio. Which would be even scarier.
You mean like Time Warner?
Annoyingly, sometimes things that conservatives don't like are also called "fascist".
Besides seriously damaging BitTorrent, this doesn't help you if they list peers on the tracker you're using. To be fair, they don't need to be associated with Comcast to do that.
From a legal standpoint, your IP being on a tracker's list is probably only worth them sending you threatening letters demanding a payoff. But then, IANAL, and you probably don't want to deal with that anyway.
With the right tools, you most certainly could. Objective C is Turing-complete.
Helium-2 is quite possible, it just has a short half-life.
And if the Stuxnet worm wasn't state-developed, then certainly sub-state actors are doing substantial damage.
"Dark matter" isn't really a name for a particular kind of matter with known properties. Some observations about gravitational forces don't work out quite right, as if there was a bunch of matter that we can't see. We don't really know any properties of it other than that it has mass and is otherwise undetectable (so far). Hence, "dark matter".
It gets kind of muddy. But I never resist the opportunity for a good crack about an engineer.
Domain specialists are domain specialists regardless of their degree.
You're at the start of a good argument for how to meaningfully measure temperature. Not surprisingly, this has been studied in substantial detail.
One thing you can do, of course, is to make a large grid of temperature probes, measure temperature with them, and then test your interpolation methods with iteratively coarser samples. That is, if you have an NxN grid of probes, make a data set of an (N/2)x(N/2) grid of probes (dropping data from 3/4 of your probes), a (N/4)x(N/4) grid of probes, etc. Apply your interpolation method to these and see how rapidly your averages converge.
There exists no way of doing measurements that are truely continuous in space; all measurement methods have some spatial resolution. Satellite-based temperature measurements have a much finer resolution than ground-based measurements.
And in another analogy he compares a 0.06% change in your weight form 175.0 lbs to 175.1 lbs over a decade to a 0.6% increase in global temperature from the mean of around 57.563 F to 57.923 F.
From 57.563 F to 57.923 F is an increase of 0.07%. You can't use 0 F as a zero point for percent increase, as Fahrenheit isn't a zero-based temperature scale. I converted to Kelvin. You could equally use Rankine, but that's unacceptably evil.
It's usually not particularly meaningful to talk about percentage increases in temperature.
To be fair, it's also not particularly meaningful to talk about percentage increases in body weight.
A more reasonable but still volatile wager would be to bet that the global temperature averaged over the next 10 years is higher than the global temperature averaged over the past 10 years.
Classical mechanics, sure.
I know an engineer who seriously suggested (albeit briefly) putting a cooling fan on an electronic component for a satellite.
Perhaps you can appreciate that the way we know that there are things like N-year glacial cycles is that people studied temperature proxies that go back some kN years (k>1). Vostok goes back 400 kyr. Sediment measurements go back some 5 million years.
In short, no. That doesn't change Earth's albedo nearly as much as you might think, and changing Earth's albedo doesn't affect the temperature by much.
So do it yourself. It's publicly-available data.
Aside from your incorrect comments about statistical significance and the insinuation that scientists aren't fully aware that they're studying a system with a very long history...
Yes, nobody thinks we'll push the world into a state that is entirely anathema to it. It's simply that we're pushing the world into a state different from that we find particularly convenient and have come to depend on. Considering that it is humans that like the climatological state and also humans changing it, I don't think you can call it particularly egotistical.
You can actually remove every weather station that has been claimed to be faulty for the above reason without significantly changing your results.
You can analyze it yourself. It's just the NASA GISS data. They use a particular averaging function to compute an estimated global average temperature, and they use the same function every year.
So, you'd like to base laws on what you personally happen to be most afraid of, rather than what is just?
Well, at least you're in good company these days.
Not if the person thinks to turn their cell phone off.
To meet OP's requirements, number of vulnerabilities doesn't really matter. All systems have some vulnerabilities. With few exceptions, they're not theoretical vulnerabilities, either -- they're actively exploited. So regardless of the device people use, it will be the case that they are using a device that is open to attack.
That people are (a) running devices that are open to attack, and (b) are able to connect such devices to any Pentagon network, is seriously pathetic.
With the current security landscape, this boils down, essentially, to:
(a) People are using computing devices
(b) Some computers are able to connect to the Pentagon network
They want the things launched into space to survive the trip.
It's already tricky to engineer things like satellite components so that they can withstand the force and vibration of liftoff on a rocket.
Not among those imprisoned for sexual assault, at least. The median age of the victims of people incarcerated for sexual assault is 13.