1. No, they have a HUGE problem with government backed monopolies which is what the ISPs are in most cases. They do not however mind "natural" monopolies which is NOT what the ISPs are today.
Please grasp the difference. A government backed monopoly is one that only exists because the government forbids competition with that company by law or policy. ISPs have this protection almost everywhere in the US.
As to 2, 3, and 4... there is nothing there that really restricts people. It merely forces contracts to be clear on their terms. Free market people have no problem with clear contracts.
Looking over your points... you seem to be suggesting that free market people are so unreasonable you won't even try to reason with them... so instead you'll just impose some draconian socialist system instead. Frankly, its that sort of attitude that gets people thinking you're a marxist. I am not calling you a marxist... just pointing out that that sort of thing will get you labeled as such.
Here is how you translate it into capitalist terms. Because this is a communication problem.
1. End all state backed communication monopolies because they make a free ISP market impossible. Anyone arguing this on capitalist terms will agree with this point. This would include AT&T, Verizon, TWC, Comcast, etc. They all enjoy regional monopolies that are backed by local governments and it is ILLEGAL to compete with them in many cases. This is the situation that allows abusive ISP policy in most cases.
2. Ask for clarity and brevity in contracts so that the consumer knows the terms of the contract they're signing. Capitalists shouldn't have a problem with this since informed consent is a central tenet of capitalism. And once those contracts are in place the ISPs will have a hard time claiming they have a right to throttle connections when that right wasn't stipulated in the contract.
3. Make it a stipulated portion of the ISP contract that it includes OR DOES NOT include access to all other networks on the internet.
4. Ask for a simplification of the regulations required for an ISP start up. Capitalists should like small business and understand that a healthy market requires them. As such, they should make it easier for small ISPs to get going and transition to medium sized ISPs should they prove successful.
Etc.
Look, a major problem of the net neutrality argument is that it IS couched in communist lingo. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or even criticizing communism. But we have to be honest about that point and keep in mind that many will reflexively oppose it simply for smelling of communism.
So if you care about net neutrality... consider what I said above because it could work as easily as anything.
So long as you means of motivating women does not take the form of suppressing, injuring, belittling, beggaring, henpecking men... I'm good with it.
By all means, give the girls all the pep talks you want. Put PSAs on TV. Give them little scientist lunch boxes. I don't care.
The instant you say I can't do something because I have a penis and you want more people with vaginas to do that job. We have a problem. I have zero respect for that sort of slavish statistical fascism.
As to your two points, that's bullshit. For one if we go back in time you'll find if anything fewer women involved in any of that. Now that was likely due to suppression in many cases but saying that in the past there were more women scientists is just goofy.
That however misses the larger point I was making that at EVERY point in human history there have been behavioral and occupational distinctions between men and women. At no point... EVER... have men and women had statistically similar occupations or interests. Ever. Try to disagree. I dare you.
As to there being more women STEM workers in other countries then in the US. That is apples and oranges. Those other countries have different economies. There were more female riveters in 1941 in the US then there are today. Clearly that's just a sign of increasing sexism in the US workplace... or maybe that was WW2 and all the men were in the military.
This again is the problem with statistics. People... like yourself... no offense... do not know how to read them. You take one variable and just compare it without translation with another variable not understanding that they are not directly comparable. There are so many other variables that have to be accounted for to even begin to do that. And that ignores the fact that often the variables actually mean totally different things in different countries or even the same country but different contexts.
I won't bore you with all the examples of this but the fact is that you cannot just lazily look at one value on a spreadsheet and compare it to another value on a different spreadsheet without understanding the context under which both spreadsheets were compiled. That is data that will not be in the spreadsheet. Sometimes even the people that make the spreadsheet don't know that information.
Its just data. And data isn't automatically science. Sometimes data is just data. Absent analysis, cross referencing, and sometimes double blind studies... the data just isn't meaningful.
Its largely a result of some bad statistics on Inuit peoples in north america.
That is almost the entire basis of the diet which is insufficient to back up a thesis of this scope. And the stats in question were shown to be wrong/flawed... thus rendering the basis of the diet nonexistent.
the problem with MyCloud is that it uses WD servers to handle an internet connection to your personal cloud and it is not capable of either being configured with a static IP, hostname, or a private routing system.
We just need these things to be entirely private without any corporate interlocutor.
I grant that interests might be mutable by social factors... however not to a extent significant enough to change this pattern.
Men go off ALONE and do things ALONE absent society, peers, culture and things... A-LONE. ANYTHING people do ALONE WITHOUT social or peer prompting and with significant consistency can be taken to not be heavily influenced by social pressure.
Those activities rather can be taken to be personal choices or choices influenced by something not related to society or peer pressure.
There are women that do these things. They are however a tiny fraction of the female population. And they are generally treated a great deal worse by their female peers then by men.
Another point all of this misses is the negative social pressure women put upon other women. Female pressure upon women BY women has been studied by psychologists many times. It is almost always far more ruthless then anything men put upon women at least in the west.
I have literally ZERO regard for the argument that it is either society's or the evil male patriarchy's fault that women aren't interested in computers or hard science.
The whole nature versus nurture debate is beyond tired. Yes... you can train people or influence people to change their nature to an extent. However, people do also have inherent natures that will either be very resistant to influence or will be beyond your ability to change. The mere resistance will change statistical probabilities of doing things.
Men in general are more likely. More likely to write a novel. More likely to write hate mail to someone they don't like. More likely to be great athletes. More likely to die from a massive heart attack after eating themselves into incredible obesity. More likely discover great things in science. More likely to collect every star wars figurine and organize them in chronological order. More likely to found a hugely successfully company and change an industry. More likely to fail horribly at a business accomplishing absolutely nothing. More likely to spend 40 hours straight programming something amazing. More likely to spend 40 hours straight playing video games.
This is what men do. They are just more likely. Complaining about their statistical differences with women is itself ignorant. Men are different. They are more likely to do lots of things and it has nothing to do with society.
The only way to balance the statistics out is to create a police state designed to suppress men and force women to do whatever it is you want them to do.
Short of that, statistical differences will persist. At this point, I think so many people are so fucking stupid when it comes to reading statistics that statistics should just be legislated to say nothing is ever different from anything else. Sound extreme? Well, when basically no one knows how to read a statistic what is the point of having them? All they do is give ignorant people bad ideas. I'm joking obviously. But the situation is extremely frustrating because almost no one understands that you can't just cite the statistic and say "this says that so sans an argument, logic, or critical review my thesis is absolutely accurate."... its stupid.
And I am truly sorry if I am offending you here... you do not deserve getting both barrels from me. So again... I am sorry for that. But this whole topic annoys the shit out of me on several overlapping levels.
You are not listening to me. I am saying that indifferent to social conditions, MEN do certain things ALONE. With or without social approval to do them. They have interests. And those interests push them towards technical pursuits.
How many women collect model trains? What sort of social approval did men need to do that? And yet they do it. That and a million other things. How many men play with gadgets for no pay what so ever or social standing or anything besides their own personal amusement?
Many of the great tech firms were started by men in garages with other men that had NOTHING.
And let us not forget that we're talking about video games which anyone can join and play IF THEY WANT TO PLAY.
The thing is... women don't. They choose not to do it.
And if we are to presume women as equals to men then they need to take SOME responsibility for themselves.
I am BEYOND tired of this stupid sexism guilt trip victim hood. Enough. This sort of bullshit might have worked on my parent's generation and it might have even been valid then. But today? Not at all. Nothing.
Wrong. STEM isn't attractive to women because women are discouraged. STEM isn't attractive because it isn't attractive.
Again, think of all the tech things men do ALONE without any social interaction. The notion that women don't do this due to some sort of social influence ignores that men do it indifferent to social influence.
Society is not to blame. Women are to blame for their own lack of interest.
there is no reason we can't self host these services... we like drop box mostly for the software, not the servers. We can provide the servers ourselves.
And why is it that all these companies are moving to cloud based software? Piracy. Which really underscores the need for more open source software because not only do people not want to pay for this stuff, we really can't. Its too much. If you bought a paid version of everything that you typically just get for free... we're talking thousands of dollars a year. We can't afford it.
So we need an open source, self hosted, appified storage solution.
The problem here is that women do not choose this stuff. And it has nothing to do with males excluding women. Men go and do this stuff all by themselves with no support what so ever.
Men do it for the same reason men build model trains, collect ornathopters, or play Dungeons and Dragons.
None of these things exclude women but women almost never do any of these things.
Its a choice women make. And it leads them to do different things. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority. It is merely a choice. A choice THEY make without coersion, intimidation, or any other manipulation.
I have a female cousin that is 15.
If I handed her a robotics kit do you think she'd be happy or do you think she'd be mad at me. MAD AT ME?!
Well, I did it. I gave her a robotics kit because I stupidly thought she'd like it. I was wrong. She was mad at me. What she wanted was some make up or some other girly shit. And that was my mistake. And that is the mistake of the people that blame this situation on men.
It isn't our fault. Ladies... you want equality? Done. With equality comes responsibility. Take it or get back in the kitchen. You choose this. Not us.
No, the worst laws come out when one faction overwhelms everyone else and then starts dictating terms to everyone else. The democratic process breaks down when that happens because large segments of the population are left without a voice.
And because the dominant party has no fear of losing power they can do absurd things because there are no checks on their power.
We see this all the time in the US. The places with the most extreme laws are places where either republicans or democrats always win. The best places are those that can go either way because it keeps politicians reasonable.
No... the US did not cap anything. The standard US electrical socket cannot handle more then that. However, that does not make illegal selling a more powerful vacuum, installing higher wattage outlets, offering battery assist on the vacuums, or running around your house on a gasoline powered vacuum cleaner destroyer bot.
Explain again why the EU should ban higher wattage vacuum cleaners. It is not a minor issue. Understand. This has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with vacuum cleaners. I don't really care about them. And really I don't live in the EU so I don't care what they do either. BUT if I did, my concern would be that an unelected government body is telling me what I can and cannot buy for arbitrary reasons. That a massive power grab. If you have any regard for your freedoms you should be heavily against this action because if they can do this think of what else they can do.
Now here you'll tell me "oh they'll never do that other stuff." Well, let me tell you in the US at least they always do everything they're legally allowed to do. Change a rule, everyone says they won't do the bad thing, thirty years go by, the people that made those promises retire/die, and the people that replace them look at the rules... see they can do the thing... and do it.
You're not going to get fucked by this tomorrow. You're going to get fucked by it in 30 years. If it becomes standard that the EU can determine what you can and cannot buy they can control the entire economy.
That's true. In that situation you set up in depth firewall, permission rules for certain applications.
You don't need to secure many of them to secure most people.
Create a rule set for each of the major browsers.
Create a rule set for Java executed from the web/email.
Create a rule set for Adobe Flash and similar programs.
Create a rule set for all the major email clients.
Create a rule set for all the major word processors/spread sheet programs/etc.
Its not actually a very long list.
If a zero day exploit takes control over one of these programs its activities can be limited to safe activities.
This might require some selective sandboxing of some programs or aspects of programs.
The white list takes care of the viruses, worms, and malware.
The access rules take care of your zero day exploits unless the exploit also exploits the specific anti virus program at the same time. In that case, sure that will get though. But the system will be massively more secure merely with the white list. The access rules on top of that will make trying to take control of the system very difficult.
Note, you do not need to create these rules for every program. Just the ones likely to be vectors for infection and infiltration. Secure them and the system should be very secure.
As to what you wish the EU was... you first must acknowledge what it is not.
Once you do that you can begin to put pressure on the EU to either reform or disband. In the case of disbanding, I assume you'd want to create it again this time with more democratic controls.
When the EU was first created, you might be interested to know that US style checks and balances were suggested. The idea was rejected on the notion that they'd rarely be able to get bills passed.
Few people understand that the US system is precisely designed to frustrate the passing of bills on the notion that nothing should become law unless there is enough of a mandate behind it to push it through the deadlock.
The worst moments in US law always come about when the stars come right and it becomes easy for a time to pass anything. Our best law comes about when all the factions are forced to sit down with each other and cooperate to get a bill passed.
Now, I am not saying the US system is the only system. Just pointing out that the price of an accountable serious system will likely be more deadlocks in any situations where there is not agreement. I would argue from my own perspective that that is desirable. But the EU planners did not see it that way. Their arguments on the issue remain a matter of historical record.
Same thing that happens when your router is compromised today. Its a zero sum game. At least the router has a chance of repelling an intrusion because it has some security features built into it. The IoTs stuff is naked.
My worry with IoTs stuff is that an outside intruder will gain control over them through the internet. I'm less worried about a war driver tapping in from the street. The router idea should provide my computers protection from the shotty security of the IoTs.
Ideally the IoTs stuff should not link to some centralized cloud server but rather host itself locally. If it does that, then I can set the incoming port numbers to something random and at that point its pretty unlikely anything is going to touch my system.
Logging into my local hub of IoTs stuff should work something like this:
You can buy a router for 200 bucks that can do port by port VLAN or create different Wifi SSIDs that link to different VLANs.
Put all your internet of things stuff on VLAN 2, then setup firewall rules that allow the hub for the internet of things devices to either communicate directly with a control system on VLAN1 or just go out to the internet. If VLAN 2 is compromised... it will not compromise VLAN 1.
Every statistic I've seen along those lines laughably compares rural households to apartments... ignoring office buildings, shopping malls, the energy cost of all the public buildings, the energy cost of basically everything but the apartments.
For the stat to mean anything you'd want the total gross energy consumption of the city divided by the population vs the total gross energy consumption of some other area divided by its population.
I've never seen anyone cite that stat so I'm a little dubious that anyone has it.
Slashdot Mirror
Statistics as a subset of CS isn't unreasonable given that nearly all statistics will be calculated by software.
Root the phone and roll your eyes.
1. No, they have a HUGE problem with government backed monopolies which is what the ISPs are in most cases. They do not however mind "natural" monopolies which is NOT what the ISPs are today.
Please grasp the difference. A government backed monopoly is one that only exists because the government forbids competition with that company by law or policy. ISPs have this protection almost everywhere in the US.
As to 2, 3, and 4... there is nothing there that really restricts people. It merely forces contracts to be clear on their terms. Free market people have no problem with clear contracts.
Looking over your points... you seem to be suggesting that free market people are so unreasonable you won't even try to reason with them... so instead you'll just impose some draconian socialist system instead. Frankly, its that sort of attitude that gets people thinking you're a marxist. I am not calling you a marxist... just pointing out that that sort of thing will get you labeled as such.
Best regards and best wishes.
Here is how you translate it into capitalist terms. Because this is a communication problem.
1. End all state backed communication monopolies because they make a free ISP market impossible. Anyone arguing this on capitalist terms will agree with this point. This would include AT&T, Verizon, TWC, Comcast, etc. They all enjoy regional monopolies that are backed by local governments and it is ILLEGAL to compete with them in many cases. This is the situation that allows abusive ISP policy in most cases.
2. Ask for clarity and brevity in contracts so that the consumer knows the terms of the contract they're signing. Capitalists shouldn't have a problem with this since informed consent is a central tenet of capitalism. And once those contracts are in place the ISPs will have a hard time claiming they have a right to throttle connections when that right wasn't stipulated in the contract.
3. Make it a stipulated portion of the ISP contract that it includes OR DOES NOT include access to all other networks on the internet.
4. Ask for a simplification of the regulations required for an ISP start up. Capitalists should like small business and understand that a healthy market requires them. As such, they should make it easier for small ISPs to get going and transition to medium sized ISPs should they prove successful.
Etc.
Look, a major problem of the net neutrality argument is that it IS couched in communist lingo. I'm not saying it is right or wrong or even criticizing communism. But we have to be honest about that point and keep in mind that many will reflexively oppose it simply for smelling of communism.
So if you care about net neutrality... consider what I said above because it could work as easily as anything.
So long as you means of motivating women does not take the form of suppressing, injuring, belittling, beggaring, henpecking men... I'm good with it.
By all means, give the girls all the pep talks you want. Put PSAs on TV. Give them little scientist lunch boxes. I don't care.
The instant you say I can't do something because I have a penis and you want more people with vaginas to do that job. We have a problem. I have zero respect for that sort of slavish statistical fascism.
As to your two points, that's bullshit. For one if we go back in time you'll find if anything fewer women involved in any of that. Now that was likely due to suppression in many cases but saying that in the past there were more women scientists is just goofy.
That however misses the larger point I was making that at EVERY point in human history there have been behavioral and occupational distinctions between men and women. At no point... EVER... have men and women had statistically similar occupations or interests. Ever. Try to disagree. I dare you.
As to there being more women STEM workers in other countries then in the US. That is apples and oranges. Those other countries have different economies. There were more female riveters in 1941 in the US then there are today. Clearly that's just a sign of increasing sexism in the US workplace... or maybe that was WW2 and all the men were in the military.
This again is the problem with statistics. People... like yourself... no offense... do not know how to read them. You take one variable and just compare it without translation with another variable not understanding that they are not directly comparable. There are so many other variables that have to be accounted for to even begin to do that. And that ignores the fact that often the variables actually mean totally different things in different countries or even the same country but different contexts.
I won't bore you with all the examples of this but the fact is that you cannot just lazily look at one value on a spreadsheet and compare it to another value on a different spreadsheet without understanding the context under which both spreadsheets were compiled. That is data that will not be in the spreadsheet. Sometimes even the people that make the spreadsheet don't know that information.
Its just data. And data isn't automatically science. Sometimes data is just data. Absent analysis, cross referencing, and sometimes double blind studies... the data just isn't meaningful.
Its largely a result of some bad statistics on Inuit peoples in north america.
That is almost the entire basis of the diet which is insufficient to back up a thesis of this scope. And the stats in question were shown to be wrong/flawed... thus rendering the basis of the diet nonexistent.
the problem with MyCloud is that it uses WD servers to handle an internet connection to your personal cloud and it is not capable of either being configured with a static IP, hostname, or a private routing system.
We just need these things to be entirely private without any corporate interlocutor.
I grant that interests might be mutable by social factors... however not to a extent significant enough to change this pattern.
Men go off ALONE and do things ALONE absent society, peers, culture and things... A-LONE. ANYTHING people do ALONE WITHOUT social or peer prompting and with significant consistency can be taken to not be heavily influenced by social pressure.
Those activities rather can be taken to be personal choices or choices influenced by something not related to society or peer pressure.
There are women that do these things. They are however a tiny fraction of the female population. And they are generally treated a great deal worse by their female peers then by men.
Another point all of this misses is the negative social pressure women put upon other women. Female pressure upon women BY women has been studied by psychologists many times. It is almost always far more ruthless then anything men put upon women at least in the west.
I have literally ZERO regard for the argument that it is either society's or the evil male patriarchy's fault that women aren't interested in computers or hard science.
The whole nature versus nurture debate is beyond tired. Yes... you can train people or influence people to change their nature to an extent. However, people do also have inherent natures that will either be very resistant to influence or will be beyond your ability to change. The mere resistance will change statistical probabilities of doing things.
Men in general are more likely. More likely to write a novel. More likely to write hate mail to someone they don't like. More likely to be great athletes. More likely to die from a massive heart attack after eating themselves into incredible obesity. More likely discover great things in science. More likely to collect every star wars figurine and organize them in chronological order. More likely to found a hugely successfully company and change an industry. More likely to fail horribly at a business accomplishing absolutely nothing. More likely to spend 40 hours straight programming something amazing. More likely to spend 40 hours straight playing video games.
This is what men do. They are just more likely. Complaining about their statistical differences with women is itself ignorant. Men are different. They are more likely to do lots of things and it has nothing to do with society.
The only way to balance the statistics out is to create a police state designed to suppress men and force women to do whatever it is you want them to do.
Short of that, statistical differences will persist. At this point, I think so many people are so fucking stupid when it comes to reading statistics that statistics should just be legislated to say nothing is ever different from anything else. Sound extreme? Well, when basically no one knows how to read a statistic what is the point of having them? All they do is give ignorant people bad ideas. I'm joking obviously. But the situation is extremely frustrating because almost no one understands that you can't just cite the statistic and say "this says that so sans an argument, logic, or critical review my thesis is absolutely accurate."... its stupid.
And I am truly sorry if I am offending you here... you do not deserve getting both barrels from me. So again... I am sorry for that. But this whole topic annoys the shit out of me on several overlapping levels.
You are not listening to me. I am saying that indifferent to social conditions, MEN do certain things ALONE. With or without social approval to do them. They have interests. And those interests push them towards technical pursuits.
How many women collect model trains? What sort of social approval did men need to do that? And yet they do it. That and a million other things. How many men play with gadgets for no pay what so ever or social standing or anything besides their own personal amusement?
Many of the great tech firms were started by men in garages with other men that had NOTHING.
And let us not forget that we're talking about video games which anyone can join and play IF THEY WANT TO PLAY.
The thing is... women don't. They choose not to do it.
And if we are to presume women as equals to men then they need to take SOME responsibility for themselves.
I am BEYOND tired of this stupid sexism guilt trip victim hood. Enough. This sort of bullshit might have worked on my parent's generation and it might have even been valid then. But today? Not at all. Nothing.
Wrong. STEM isn't attractive to women because women are discouraged. STEM isn't attractive because it isn't attractive.
Again, think of all the tech things men do ALONE without any social interaction. The notion that women don't do this due to some sort of social influence ignores that men do it indifferent to social influence.
Society is not to blame. Women are to blame for their own lack of interest.
End of story.
there is no reason we can't self host these services... we like drop box mostly for the software, not the servers. We can provide the servers ourselves.
And why is it that all these companies are moving to cloud based software? Piracy. Which really underscores the need for more open source software because not only do people not want to pay for this stuff, we really can't. Its too much. If you bought a paid version of everything that you typically just get for free... we're talking thousands of dollars a year. We can't afford it.
So we need an open source, self hosted, appified storage solution.
The problem here is that women do not choose this stuff. And it has nothing to do with males excluding women. Men go and do this stuff all by themselves with no support what so ever.
Men do it for the same reason men build model trains, collect ornathopters, or play Dungeons and Dragons.
None of these things exclude women but women almost never do any of these things.
Its a choice women make. And it leads them to do different things. It has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority. It is merely a choice. A choice THEY make without coersion, intimidation, or any other manipulation.
I have a female cousin that is 15.
If I handed her a robotics kit do you think she'd be happy or do you think she'd be mad at me. MAD AT ME?!
Well, I did it. I gave her a robotics kit because I stupidly thought she'd like it. I was wrong. She was mad at me. What she wanted was some make up or some other girly shit. And that was my mistake. And that is the mistake of the people that blame this situation on men.
It isn't our fault. Ladies... you want equality? Done. With equality comes responsibility. Take it or get back in the kitchen. You choose this. Not us.
No, the worst laws come out when one faction overwhelms everyone else and then starts dictating terms to everyone else. The democratic process breaks down when that happens because large segments of the population are left without a voice.
And because the dominant party has no fear of losing power they can do absurd things because there are no checks on their power.
We see this all the time in the US. The places with the most extreme laws are places where either republicans or democrats always win. The best places are those that can go either way because it keeps politicians reasonable.
No... the US did not cap anything. The standard US electrical socket cannot handle more then that. However, that does not make illegal selling a more powerful vacuum, installing higher wattage outlets, offering battery assist on the vacuums, or running around your house on a gasoline powered vacuum cleaner destroyer bot.
Explain again why the EU should ban higher wattage vacuum cleaners. It is not a minor issue. Understand. This has NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with vacuum cleaners. I don't really care about them. And really I don't live in the EU so I don't care what they do either. BUT if I did, my concern would be that an unelected government body is telling me what I can and cannot buy for arbitrary reasons. That a massive power grab. If you have any regard for your freedoms you should be heavily against this action because if they can do this think of what else they can do.
Now here you'll tell me "oh they'll never do that other stuff." Well, let me tell you in the US at least they always do everything they're legally allowed to do. Change a rule, everyone says they won't do the bad thing, thirty years go by, the people that made those promises retire/die, and the people that replace them look at the rules... see they can do the thing... and do it.
You're not going to get fucked by this tomorrow. You're going to get fucked by it in 30 years. If it becomes standard that the EU can determine what you can and cannot buy they can control the entire economy.
This project is interesting but its not flexible enough.
That's true. In that situation you set up in depth firewall, permission rules for certain applications.
You don't need to secure many of them to secure most people.
Create a rule set for each of the major browsers.
Create a rule set for Java executed from the web/email.
Create a rule set for Adobe Flash and similar programs.
Create a rule set for all the major email clients.
Create a rule set for all the major word processors/spread sheet programs/etc.
Its not actually a very long list.
If a zero day exploit takes control over one of these programs its activities can be limited to safe activities.
This might require some selective sandboxing of some programs or aspects of programs.
The white list takes care of the viruses, worms, and malware.
The access rules take care of your zero day exploits unless the exploit also exploits the specific anti virus program at the same time. In that case, sure that will get though. But the system will be massively more secure merely with the white list. The access rules on top of that will make trying to take control of the system very difficult.
Note, you do not need to create these rules for every program. Just the ones likely to be vectors for infection and infiltration. Secure them and the system should be very secure.
As to what you wish the EU was... you first must acknowledge what it is not.
Once you do that you can begin to put pressure on the EU to either reform or disband. In the case of disbanding, I assume you'd want to create it again this time with more democratic controls.
When the EU was first created, you might be interested to know that US style checks and balances were suggested. The idea was rejected on the notion that they'd rarely be able to get bills passed.
Few people understand that the US system is precisely designed to frustrate the passing of bills on the notion that nothing should become law unless there is enough of a mandate behind it to push it through the deadlock.
The worst moments in US law always come about when the stars come right and it becomes easy for a time to pass anything. Our best law comes about when all the factions are forced to sit down with each other and cooperate to get a bill passed.
Now, I am not saying the US system is the only system. Just pointing out that the price of an accountable serious system will likely be more deadlocks in any situations where there is not agreement. I would argue from my own perspective that that is desirable. But the EU planners did not see it that way. Their arguments on the issue remain a matter of historical record.
Same thing that happens when your router is compromised today. Its a zero sum game. At least the router has a chance of repelling an intrusion because it has some security features built into it. The IoTs stuff is naked.
My worry with IoTs stuff is that an outside intruder will gain control over them through the internet. I'm less worried about a war driver tapping in from the street. The router idea should provide my computers protection from the shotty security of the IoTs.
Ideally the IoTs stuff should not link to some centralized cloud server but rather host itself locally. If it does that, then I can set the incoming port numbers to something random and at that point its pretty unlikely anything is going to touch my system.
Logging into my local hub of IoTs stuff should work something like this:
https://myhomeiprandomportnumb...
At that point while a breach is possible its just very unlikely.
Remind me why they need to cap it then? From what you're saying this is a pointless regulation that accomplishes nothing.
You can buy a router for 200 bucks that can do port by port VLAN or create different Wifi SSIDs that link to different VLANs.
Put all your internet of things stuff on VLAN 2, then setup firewall rules that allow the hub for the internet of things devices to either communicate directly with a control system on VLAN1 or just go out to the internet. If VLAN 2 is compromised... it will not compromise VLAN 1.
You're right... the UK is totally incapable of doing something any third world country could do... what was I thinking.
Forgive me.
Fucktard.
its not like scotland would own those weapons. Just move them to the UK and continue business as usual...
they're bringing in low wage entry level tech drones from india.
In what way are they more energy efficient?
Every statistic I've seen along those lines laughably compares rural households to apartments... ignoring office buildings, shopping malls, the energy cost of all the public buildings, the energy cost of basically everything but the apartments.
For the stat to mean anything you'd want the total gross energy consumption of the city divided by the population vs the total gross energy consumption of some other area divided by its population.
I've never seen anyone cite that stat so I'm a little dubious that anyone has it.
I like to be able to toggle flash on and off. What is more, i whitelist some sites only to have them annoy me with flash videos.