With Linux and a Linksys router (even without installing FOSS firmware) I need only harden a few critical points, and I have a very high (>99.9%) confidence that no one is reading my tax forms, etc.
With Windows in its present condition, I have absolutely no idea how to be certain that it isn't simply sending all my shit off to lala land.
This is the problem, not the solution: "decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result"
Instead of passing laws to influence who will win the game, we should focus on just the rules. Make the *rules* fair. That is what we can control. We cannot control the outcome, nor even the initial conditions.
Shouting fire when it's false and you know it could be considered a form of fraud, or instigation of chaos. Speech really isn't the issue. E.g., I can't claim "free speech" lets me falsely advertise a product.
The problem is a 3rd party. The airlines should be responsible for security. They have the incentive to not loose planes, and not have their company liquidated to cover liability for loss of life due to negligent security practices leading to a major catastrophe. Of course it was the Feds who took that liability away.
We mess up the incentives and then wonder why society is broken--only to try and solve it with further distortions. We really have no idea what we are doing.
The answer is to absolutely forbid ever absolving the airlines of liability for loss of life if they loose a plane due to negligence or letting on a bad guy.
Establish a fairly simple standard set of security criteria. Let the airlines voluntarily submit to independent testing of their defenses. If they pass (with periodic re-inspection) then they get some bonus, like protection from *criminal* liability for an accident. This way, small private charters can forego the standard compliance without undo risk because they basically know their clients.
Seriously, we aren't even trying to solve this. I haven't heard a new political idea about just about anything in decades.
WTF is "US libertarianism?" The US is a borderline totalitarian police and regulatory state.
How the fuck can you retain liberty and simultaneously put a gun to someone's head if they happen to do something productive, in order to take a cut?
Capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production. It only defines the character of the system of laws and their enforcement, and the form and means of funding social institutions, to the extent that any involuntary expropriation of wealth or compulsory duties are anti-capitalist, anti-individual, and anti-liberty.
For ex., it is entirely possible to have a capitalism that is heavily biased toward favoring the rights of individuals over larger aggregations of individuals, such as corporations. To the extent that corporations have limited liability, under capitalism they may have special obligations to "society" (regulation, liquidation of assets when guilty of a crime, etc.) without contradicting the principle of liberty for the individual--because they are not fucking people!
In short, almost everything that upsets people is directly related to the extent that this fucked up place has strayed *away* from capitalism and individual liberty. Yet they consistently beg for the "solution" to be the complete and total abandonment of individual liberty--in the form of socialism.
It used to be, only Liberal Arts majors, artists, poets, sculptors, athletes, trades people, businessmen, and musicians could get their hands on, or knew anything about microcontrollers.
Ah yes, the old "peer review" is what makes things real, argument. Appeal to authority much?
While reproducibility is a necessary criterion for things to be scientifically valid, peer review is not. Peer review is just one (imperfect) mechanism for quality control of scientific publications. The scientific method stands by itself, and is perfect. It is a discipline of thought and methodology. It does not require peer review.
Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahaha! You think the fucking SCHOOLS are going to teach the kids how to exercise their individual rights? When all they want to do is indoctrinate the little slaves into a collectivist mindsetm and filter the ones that can't submit into prisons?
Do you still foolishly believe that the intention of schools is actually to educate children?
"in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!"
You have effectively proved a conclusion I've been converging on for a long time--we humans cannot self-govern in a manner that is "fair" to all sorts of people. This should be obvious of course, considering our evolutionary upbringing. Indeed, all social/political problems are intractable.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however, as we have to do *something*. But, we continue to approach everything from ideological perspectives moulded by identity groups. Think about how well this would work if the problem was fixing a car? Ie., it's not an engineering/science informed approach. How can we take any political ideas seriously, when there is no working model? That's all I have to say about the disgusting political realm anymore: "where's your working model of individual and societal human behavior?" If you don't have that, then no, I won't join your cause.
It's also interesting, that even scientists and engineers don't articulate anything like this. The need to belong to an identity group is capable of inducing compartmentalization of cognitive skills even in those who have some measure of comprehension of scientifically rigorous logic & empiricism.
You are correct of course. 99% of American's thinking on foreign policy is clouded by the delusion of American "exceptionalism." We literally think the world would descend back into the Dark Ages if it weren't for the USA.
Why not just drop them the old fashioned way, from airplanes, if there is concern about freaking out China? I'm sure we could minimize any serious risk of NK shooting down a US bomber accompanied by heavy defensive fighter/interceptor support.
Let's say you have a pension with a company. You retire. A few months later the pension checks stop coming because, it is revealed, the financial management of the pension fund was a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The fund is bust and the money is gone.
Do you now have a right to go over to your neighbor's house and put a gun to his head and take his money, because "someone" has to pay the money you were promised?
If you are talking about undergrad. or HS, then it isn't really necessary to be forging ahead with new investigations, but rather to demonstrate and master the connection between already well understood empirical and theoretical science.
Whereas if you are talking about advanced undergrad. or grad. students, then I'd be considering if a fusor could generate neutrons suitable for neutron activation or imaging studies.
He didn't produce self-sustaining fission (criticality). You can't do that in such a small volume without HEU. He *may* have managed to get some neutron multiplication by putting a neutron source surrounded by a bunch of crude U ore.
What he did wrong was collect too many otherwise legal, unlicensed sources together making the sum total in one place violate NRC regs. That is why they took his stuff away.
You can play with a lot of radioactive stuff without trouble, if you just stay under the quantity limits.
Slashdot Mirror
With Linux and a Linksys router (even without installing FOSS firmware) I need only harden a few critical points, and I have a very high (>99.9%) confidence that no one is reading my tax forms, etc.
With Windows in its present condition, I have absolutely no idea how to be certain that it isn't simply sending all my shit off to lala land.
This is the problem, not the solution: "decide what result is wanted, and how to best get that result"
Instead of passing laws to influence who will win the game, we should focus on just the rules. Make the *rules* fair. That is what we can control. We cannot control the outcome, nor even the initial conditions.
Shouting fire when it's false and you know it could be considered a form of fraud, or instigation of chaos. Speech really isn't the issue. E.g., I can't claim "free speech" lets me falsely advertise a product.
This really does argue for the need for digital document authenticity/signatures.
The problem is a 3rd party. The airlines should be responsible for security. They have the incentive to not loose planes, and not have their company liquidated to cover liability for loss of life due to negligent security practices leading to a major catastrophe. Of course it was the Feds who took that liability away.
We mess up the incentives and then wonder why society is broken--only to try and solve it with further distortions. We really have no idea what we are doing.
The answer is to absolutely forbid ever absolving the airlines of liability for loss of life if they loose a plane due to negligence or letting on a bad guy.
Establish a fairly simple standard set of security criteria. Let the airlines voluntarily submit to independent testing of their defenses. If they pass (with periodic re-inspection) then they get some bonus, like protection from *criminal* liability for an accident. This way, small private charters can forego the standard compliance without undo risk because they basically know their clients.
Seriously, we aren't even trying to solve this. I haven't heard a new political idea about just about anything in decades.
You also couldn't refute it, and did a piss poor job of hiding that fact. Fuck off.
WTF is "US libertarianism?" The US is a borderline totalitarian police and regulatory state.
How the fuck can you retain liberty and simultaneously put a gun to someone's head if they happen to do something productive, in order to take a cut?
Capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production. It only defines the character of the system of laws and their enforcement, and the form and means of funding social institutions, to the extent that any involuntary expropriation of wealth or compulsory duties are anti-capitalist, anti-individual, and anti-liberty.
For ex., it is entirely possible to have a capitalism that is heavily biased toward favoring the rights of individuals over larger aggregations of individuals, such as corporations. To the extent that corporations have limited liability, under capitalism they may have special obligations to "society" (regulation, liquidation of assets when guilty of a crime, etc.) without contradicting the principle of liberty for the individual--because they are not fucking people!
In short, almost everything that upsets people is directly related to the extent that this fucked up place has strayed *away* from capitalism and individual liberty. Yet they consistently beg for the "solution" to be the complete and total abandonment of individual liberty--in the form of socialism.
It's the current that's yummy. And not dangerous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It used to be, only Liberal Arts majors, artists, poets, sculptors, athletes, trades people, businessmen, and musicians could get their hands on, or knew anything about microcontrollers.
Try re-reading your sig.
Ah yes, the old "peer review" is what makes things real, argument. Appeal to authority much?
While reproducibility is a necessary criterion for things to be scientifically valid, peer review is not. Peer review is just one (imperfect) mechanism for quality control of scientific publications. The scientific method stands by itself, and is perfect. It is a discipline of thought and methodology. It does not require peer review.
It's interesting that this group of female engineers and managers didn't form a company to produce an actual tech. product.
The Matrix was not a Universe Simulation.
Bwahhahahahahahahahahahahaha! You think the fucking SCHOOLS are going to teach the kids how to exercise their individual rights? When all they want to do is indoctrinate the little slaves into a collectivist mindsetm and filter the ones that can't submit into prisons?
Do you still foolishly believe that the intention of schools is actually to educate children?
"in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!"
You have effectively proved a conclusion I've been converging on for a long time--we humans cannot self-govern in a manner that is "fair" to all sorts of people. This should be obvious of course, considering our evolutionary upbringing. Indeed, all social/political problems are intractable.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however, as we have to do *something*. But, we continue to approach everything from ideological perspectives moulded by identity groups. Think about how well this would work if the problem was fixing a car? Ie., it's not an engineering/science informed approach. How can we take any political ideas seriously, when there is no working model? That's all I have to say about the disgusting political realm anymore: "where's your working model of individual and societal human behavior?" If you don't have that, then no, I won't join your cause.
It's also interesting, that even scientists and engineers don't articulate anything like this. The need to belong to an identity group is capable of inducing compartmentalization of cognitive skills even in those who have some measure of comprehension of scientifically rigorous logic & empiricism.
You are correct of course. 99% of American's thinking on foreign policy is clouded by the delusion of American "exceptionalism." We literally think the world would descend back into the Dark Ages if it weren't for the USA.
Why not just drop them the old fashioned way, from airplanes, if there is concern about freaking out China? I'm sure we could minimize any serious risk of NK shooting down a US bomber accompanied by heavy defensive fighter/interceptor support.
Sounds like a cult the way you describe the FBI.
You'd be giving back to the police their own camera. Putting tape over it will probably be a crime soon...
Many of the Chinese I hung with in college went back to China.
Let's say you have a pension with a company. You retire. A few months later the pension checks stop coming because, it is revealed, the financial management of the pension fund was a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The fund is bust and the money is gone.
Do you now have a right to go over to your neighbor's house and put a gun to his head and take his money, because "someone" has to pay the money you were promised?
If you are talking about undergrad. or HS, then it isn't really necessary to be forging ahead with new investigations, but rather to demonstrate and master the connection between already well understood empirical and theoretical science.
Whereas if you are talking about advanced undergrad. or grad. students, then I'd be considering if a fusor could generate neutrons suitable for neutron activation or imaging studies.
You nailed it!
He didn't produce self-sustaining fission (criticality). You can't do that in such a small volume without HEU. He *may* have managed to get some neutron multiplication by putting a neutron source surrounded by a bunch of crude U ore.
What he did wrong was collect too many otherwise legal, unlicensed sources together making the sum total in one place violate NRC regs. That is why they took his stuff away.
You can play with a lot of radioactive stuff without trouble, if you just stay under the quantity limits.