First, for companies or collective networks... obviously you don't let anyone flag a program as okay.
In a network you should be able to REQUEST a program to run. But at most companies they don't run different software every day. They have a few programs they run all the time and the only person trying to run something different is either some twit trying to install a game on company systems or sometimes there is an upgrade.
In either case the solutions suggest themselves.
In either a corporate or home setting, a white list paradigm would still have anti virus. but the anti virus would not be a black listing system. It would be a white listing system. Where in the bit of software you want to run would be cataloged by Symantec or Avast or something. These companies would be trolling shareware sites, getting updates of all the new program exes, and so when you try to run a program unknown to the computer, the computer would send a signiture or a hash or something identifiable from that executable to symantec or avast or whomever. And they would match that to a lookup table and then send a message back to your system saying "yea" or "nay". The lookup table could also be stored locally of course. Though I'm assuming the file might be pretty big. You might want to go with a hybrid system where common queries are updated to local systems regardless of whether those specific local systems attempt to run that software. And unusual programs would be authenticated as needed from the anti virus servers.
As to the home environment, you can't stop people from blowing their own dicks off. Its going to happen. But I think it is reasonable to set things up so that wary though not especially skilled people can remain fairly safe.
Here's my objective. I want my mom to not get hacked. My uncle is probably going to blow his dick off. He loves to download shareware and says yes and okay to anything. He's constantly infected with something.
But my mom downloads nothing. Nada. Same with my dad. They do email and websites and programs I install on their machines for them.
Anti virus programs however will not really protect them. I've tried sandboxie for example but it slows the machine down horribly and its just an extra complication for people that have a hard enough time with the most basic things in any case.
So I think a white listing system would be very good for them.
Another way to think of it would be a custom/private walled garden.
This is the system that both iOS and Android have attempted to use on their systems. They want all the software to come through their marketplaces which are effectively white listing systems.
Now without going into whether their marketplaces actually keep malware off machines, lets address white listing as a security model.
Imagine if rather then building huge lists of all the possible permutations of malware we instead made a much bigger list of all the software that is good. And then you set things up so that any twit with an app can upload his program to symantec or avast or whatever... and pay them a nominal fee to get it authorized to run without warning.
it shouldn't be expensive.
And lets consider the real small producers that are doing open source software or doing one off apps, etc. Well, I would imagine that you might get some sort of open source community that might be willing to authorize files and programs gratis. Anything popular or good is in the interest of everyone to be labeled clean.
And then assuming none of that happens or there are problems with that people should be very careful and either sandbox programs that are not vetted or simply override the lockout locally and add an exception to the security policy for that program.
I'll just point this out that I just noticed and found to be sort of funny: in 1990 soft plus hard coal plus imported power= 170.9 + 140.8 -.8 = 310.9 in 2013 soft plus hard coal plus imported power= 162.0 + 124.0 + 33.0 = 319.0
Again, I'm assuming the imported power is coal. It could be anything but I'm pretty sure it isn't imported wind power. It could be hydro. Who knows. I'm assuming coal or nuclear.
Tell me if you think I'm being unfair with the numbers. I'm just adding things up.
lignite --- Soft coal nuclear energy hard coal natural gas petroleum products renewable among them - Wind power - Hydropower - biomass - Photovoltaic - Household waste Other sources of energy
That is the full list. Lets first look at the total gross power generation:
We can see that with the exception of a big drop in 2009 the energy generation is stable or rising.
In 2013 total renewable production was: 49,8 21,2 42,6 28,3 5,2 25,9 = 173***
***This number is wrong. I think I'm double counting something. But I don't think it will matter for our purposes here. For the sake of argument I'll let the renewables be slightly over represented.
Which is very impressive. Its about germany's total nuclear production at its peak. I do question if we can do an apples to apples comparison there because I doubt you can rely on the power in the same way you can rely on the nuclear power. But its still impressive.
Looking at the data, we can see that coal is down a little but not much and nuclear power is still at about 2/3rds of its peak production.
The german renewables program at best accounts for about 27.5 percent of total production. Again, I am hesitant to give it this designation because the power is not reliable and so must be backstopped with something else. But by the chart and for the sake of argument that is 27.5*** percent. Which is very impressive.
Going further, it looks like germany is importing more energy then they did in the past. In fact, I think they used to be net producers. I rather doubt the imported power is renewable so we are going to have to count that as coal/nuclear power. It could be hydro if you can provide some documentation for that. But I suspect it is either coal, nuclear, or natural gas from eastern europe.
I am looking at this section: Flows from abroad Current flows in the foreign Current exchange balance abroad
In 1990 it was basically neutral and you can see from year to year it tends to be a small number. But in 2006 it went into double digits and was 33 TWh in 2013.
Going over the rest of the graph it just seems to break this out by percentage which we could easily derive ourselves from the first graph.
So okay, using only this as data do you see the devil in the details? Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it looks like they're importing more power probably from fossil fuel sources which has to be accounted for if you're going to make an AGW argument.
The climate is GLOBAL. Simply having your coal burned in another country doesn't mean it doesn't count. Burn it on mars if you want to do that and I'd say fine. But if its burned on planet earth it has to be accounted for if we are talking about AGW.
So lets look at the reductions fossil fuel energy: In so far as soft coal is concerned, it doesn't appear to be in decline. It goes up and down but if anything it is on an upward trend.
Nuclear power is down about 50-70 TWh off its peak. Or roughly 2/3rds of peak. 40 of which dropped off the grid in 2011.
Looking at the data in 2011 most of the slack was taken up by "renewables".
Then we have hard coal which at its peak was about 150 TWh and in 2013 was 124 TWh.
***I should note again that I think I double counted something in the renewable list which has slightly inflated the amount of renewable energy being produced. I don't think it matters right now but I'll figure that out later if it turns out that it distorts my numbers too much.
From what I can see, the only real reduction in fossil fuel use has been the fall in hard coal from 150 at its peak which was honestly an unusually high year to what it is today around 125. So we're talking about a reduction in
I question whether the new plants are counted in your statistic. It might only count primary power facilities.
Keep in mind Germany is decommissioning its nuclear power plants. To say their coal power production has fallen not increased suggests that either renewables are entirely picking up the slack from the combined nuclear power facilities in Germany. Or you're saying energy consumption in germany has fallen rather dramatically. Or... where is the power coming from?
I grant that the renewables are providing power. I question whether they've not only replaced the nuclear power plants entirely but have also exceeded their production to replace 5 percent of the coal power plants.
In the context of a coal power plant building boom and the fact that this is a very political issue... I question whether someone is playing with YOUR statistics. You must concede that politically sensitive statistics are frequently manipulated and should never be accepted without audit.
To that end, I would like a source on your information so that I can attempt an audit of the statistic.
Provide that source information please or I have to simply invalidate the citation entirely which leave you with no basis what so ever.
You can't cite all military spending in the middle east as oil subsidies.
No one accepts that association outside outside of the crackpots.
And you're right, I did just use an ad hominem but your argument is about as silly as claiming the Apollo moon landings didn't happen or that the world is only 6000 years old.
It would also be ad hominem to suggest that the only people that believe those things are also crack pots. And the point is that with all three of those arguments, I really shouldn't have to explain this to you.
... For coal power plants that are backstopping the renewable system. That fact is at odds with his statements. They are backstopping their renewable program with coal power plants... not choreography.
The problem with this idea is that the renewable systems often will not produce enough PERIOD. Not because they can't but because environmental conditions at that exact time mean the power is not there. If the wind doesn't blow and the sun is down... where is your power coming from? Now you could say "if you make the grid big enough, there will be somewhere that has sun and wind." Fine. But that is going to mean transporting power thousands of miles in some cases which means you're going to lose a fair amount to transmission. And even then the idea is pretty dubious on that scale.
I would argue that we need one of two things.
1. A break through in storage.
2. Reliable power generation to backstop the system.
What is more, wind and solar are not actually this cheap... they're only that cheap WITH subsidies. And it the growth of these subsidies that is largely pushing the prices at this point.
Here someone says "oil is subsidized too!"... yeah but not to the same relative extent. In absolute terms oil might get the same amount of money but its a vastly larger industry so the point doesn't really mean anything.
Anyway, I'm not arguing in favor of oil. I'd love for everything to go all electric. BUT we need to not cripple ourselves in the process.
Rather then looking for and identifying bad software... look for and identify good software. White lists deal with zero days. Set up security so that all unknown code is forbidden. Obviously let the user if they have permissions exempt unknown code from the security. But anything else... no execution.
Assuming you ran that program, would you feel safe running it on your actual computer on your actual network?
I wouldn't. Its basically a free for all VPN that you throw on your machine. Anyone could use that thing. yeah, people in repressive regimes trying to be free. Also terrorists and pedophiles.
And lets not forget hackers that want to exploit your good will to gain access to your system.
Now lets assume you really want to help so you're going to run this thing. What sort of precautions would you have to take to do it responsibly?
I'm thinking I would have to run it sandboxed or VMed somehow. Or on a spare machine that I don't care about. Possibly on a raspberry pi because why not.
Then I'm thinking it would have to be on a different VLAN. Because I am sure as hell not sharing a private network with that thing.
And even then I'm thinking that isn't enough because what is to stop the hacker that takes control of the raspberry pi on VLAN2 from simply hacking the router, gaining access to VLAN1, and then proceeding to rape my network from the inside out?
You see the problem. I like the idea of this thing. I just can't trust it. Maybe if I put it on a hosted system data center or something and let them deal with it. After all they have no reason to trust anyone that hosts programs on their systems. They should firewall everything from everything else as a matter of course.
Does it make any sense to bridge the first router that creates VLAN2 to a second router so that if someone accesses the gateway they won't actually be accessing the router that controls the VLANs? That is, bridge a second router on VLAN2 to the port and let it act as the gateway for the suspect system?
Would that make this operation safe or is this just needless abstraction that doesn't accomplish anything?
They can stop pay services but they can't stop free services. lets say you just list that you're taking a ride from point X to point Y and would be willing to pick up anyone along the way.
How can that be illegal. Now do you want to pick up a total stranger? Maybe not. But then maybe the culture will change where you'll be okay with that.
I don't mind the brain washing of the legal profession or as I prefer to think of it "programming"... the issue is that the programming must create consistently competent and ethical legal professionals.
If its not doing that then I question what the point of the programming is and if it was established correctly. If done properly, it should condition legal professionals to all think in a certain way that is useful to the legal system's purpose which is the administration of legal justice.
If your goal is to just scapegoat the tech department every time you want to do something illegal then its not in the interest of any competent professional programmer or IT admin to deal with you.
The best you can get are low wage contractors from india or other assorted flunkies that will doubtless cock up anything complicated and deliver consistent failure. at inflated prices.
So really in your example it just sounds like the people making choices need to be given fewer or perhaps no responsibilities.
... And process this literally. What he is suggesting is that engineers need to have more control over projects and feel that their contributions make a difference.
The insulting language I believe was put in to get the arrogant incompetent government drones to pay attention to it. See, we can do insulting too.
But strip out the insulting back and forth and see the literal message. He's suggesting that engineers be given some control and leeway to manage projects. He's also suggesting that those projects will be more successful if the engineers are allowed to control the direction of them to some extent.
Now, who here disagrees that that would be a bad idea? It is precisely the lack of that that makes those sorts of jobs intolerable. You're often dealing with a badly designed system that wants to be upgraded into an even more badly designed system and you're being judged on how well this badly designed system works.
On top of that, the system whether well or poorly designed isn't doing anything interesting or often even useful.
So yeah, I think the stuffed shirts have every reason to express their needs in a vague sense. Because they don't actually know what they want specifically. But the actual implementation and specific design should be handled by the engineers with a great deal of flexibility.
The NSA's reputation has been annihilated. There are good people that work for such organizations. People that could and do benefit our society on a regular basis. Their institution was simply coopted by irresponsible people that sadly destroyed everything. Its a shame.
Its the common denominator. The rot is concentrated in union controlled areas.
Look, you want to draw this out into some sort of extended debate? It doesn't matter. The areas where your idea is applied are dying. All I have to do to win is wait.
I wish you were reasonable. But you're not. So fine.
It is people like you that force every situation to be resolved with some sort of power play because you're utterly unreasonable. Nothing short of a loaded gun against you forehead with a cocked hammer ever makes you stop.
What I want is to be left alone. What you want is to control everything. My goal might be selfish or whatever silly insult you might wish to throw at it. But its at least obtainable. Your goal... its as impossible as it is self destructive.
Except for the auto industry is doing quite well outside of Detroit. We're seeing expansion and growth while everything the unions control withers.
It doesn't matter... the militant unions are well on their way to killing themselves. And then we have only the government unions to deal with... a much bigger problem. But then some of them have gone so far as to bankrupt the cities and states they've dominated. So we'll see what happens.
I know police officers that brag about having politicians in their pockets. I know teachers that confide that they're terrified of reprisals from the local union reps over the most petty of issues. This is what happens when you empower such entities without restraint or oversight. People run wild.
Things that can't go on forever... do not. This business model is rapidly running out of time. And when it does... you'll likely propose something closer to full state socialism or something equally hilariously inept.
But then you'll be in the position of the Venezuelans as well as turning the US into a true banana republic. You see... even with total power you still need to make the system work. And it doesn't so you won't... and thus there will be shortages, brown outs, water will get cut off, whole civic institutions will collapse...
At some point, you either deal with empirical reality and set success as the first criteria. Or you're setting everyone that associates with you up for suffering.
A fair number of them only signed those contracts because they really didn't have a choice.
That is supposed to be one the good things about unions. Leverage.
Well, with leverage comes responsibility. If you force companies to comply with your rules then you should be judged for the consequences.
Often as not, they're also compelled by law to obey the unions. The department of labor was set up largely to make the unions even more powerful which had the disastrous results of turning America's manufacturing centers into "the rust belt".
Do I hold the CEO's blameless? No. They could have escaped the trap in much the same way a trapped animal can chew its own arm off to escape. I'd much rather they had done that because it would have been better for the country in the long run if the unions had been resisted more absolutely to the point of corporate destruction. But corporations aren't built like that. They're built to make money. Not have principles or see the long term damages to cultures.
This is ultimately on us as citizens. Part of not having rulers and kings is taking responsibility. The American people collectively have screwed their own country up with a lot of this crap.
The good news is that the hostile politically active unions in the private sector are isolated, demoralized, and shrinking. There are good unions in the US. But you rarely hear about them because they're ACTUALLY concerned with their workers and their industries rather then being proxies for national political games.
I have no problem with the good unions. They are generally well liked by the industries they operate in and don't involve member dues in causes that do not involve the job and industry interests of their workers.
Sure. Just so long as you stop calling kings, "kings" if they do bad things in certain areas of the world. After all, kings sounds like a nice word. Really only good rulers should be allowed to call themselves kings.
And we might as well rename countries or nations that do bad things something besides countries or nations.
And lets do that with world leaders. After all, not all world leaders are bad. But if we call both good and bad world leaders the same name its confusing... right?
All we have to do is get the bad unions in the US to agree with you and stop calling themselves unions.
As soon as that is accomplished, I'd be happy to stop calling them unions.
Until then, their actions reflect upon the whole institution just as any other associated actor reflects upon its peers.
You seriously want to play semantic games with me?
Here is the point which you're not getting.
You do not live here. You do not understand what we deal with. You do not know our history. You do not know what we are talking about.
Now if I were start lecturing YOU on union in Australia, I think you'd feel that was a bit silly. Wouldn't you?
In the United States, we have unions. They have a history. We know them better then you ever will.
They have earned a bad reputation for certain types of behavior.
You want to talk about how they could be good if they didn't do the bad things? Well sure... any bad thing would be fine if it didn't do the bad things. Genius observation there.
The point is that in the US, we have a lot of unions that have done bad things. So many people are not going to be very receptive to expanding their power.
Right, because industry is collapsing everywhere in the US...
Oh wait, no it isn't... its just collapsed in places the unions dominate.
I really have no patience for this level of blindness. You want to sign a suicide pact with your ideology?
Go for it. Just leave my name off the list. Your foolishness has destroyed everything its touched. What little growth we have at this point is only found where fools like you have no sway at all.
Slashdot Mirror
First, for companies or collective networks... obviously you don't let anyone flag a program as okay.
In a network you should be able to REQUEST a program to run. But at most companies they don't run different software every day. They have a few programs they run all the time and the only person trying to run something different is either some twit trying to install a game on company systems or sometimes there is an upgrade.
In either case the solutions suggest themselves.
In either a corporate or home setting, a white list paradigm would still have anti virus. but the anti virus would not be a black listing system. It would be a white listing system. Where in the bit of software you want to run would be cataloged by Symantec or Avast or something. These companies would be trolling shareware sites, getting updates of all the new program exes, and so when you try to run a program unknown to the computer, the computer would send a signiture or a hash or something identifiable from that executable to symantec or avast or whomever. And they would match that to a lookup table and then send a message back to your system saying "yea" or "nay". The lookup table could also be stored locally of course. Though I'm assuming the file might be pretty big. You might want to go with a hybrid system where common queries are updated to local systems regardless of whether those specific local systems attempt to run that software. And unusual programs would be authenticated as needed from the anti virus servers.
As to the home environment, you can't stop people from blowing their own dicks off. Its going to happen. But I think it is reasonable to set things up so that wary though not especially skilled people can remain fairly safe.
Here's my objective. I want my mom to not get hacked. My uncle is probably going to blow his dick off. He loves to download shareware and says yes and okay to anything. He's constantly infected with something.
But my mom downloads nothing. Nada. Same with my dad. They do email and websites and programs I install on their machines for them.
Anti virus programs however will not really protect them. I've tried sandboxie for example but it slows the machine down horribly and its just an extra complication for people that have a hard enough time with the most basic things in any case.
So I think a white listing system would be very good for them.
Another way to think of it would be a custom/private walled garden.
This is the system that both iOS and Android have attempted to use on their systems. They want all the software to come through their marketplaces which are effectively white listing systems.
Now without going into whether their marketplaces actually keep malware off machines, lets address white listing as a security model.
Imagine if rather then building huge lists of all the possible permutations of malware we instead made a much bigger list of all the software that is good. And then you set things up so that any twit with an app can upload his program to symantec or avast or whatever... and pay them a nominal fee to get it authorized to run without warning.
it shouldn't be expensive.
And lets consider the real small producers that are doing open source software or doing one off apps, etc. Well, I would imagine that you might get some sort of open source community that might be willing to authorize files and programs gratis. Anything popular or good is in the interest of everyone to be labeled clean.
And then assuming none of that happens or there are problems with that people should be very careful and either sandbox programs that are not vetted or simply override the lockout locally and add an exception to the security policy for that program.
I'll just point this out that I just noticed and found to be sort of funny: .8 = 310.9
in 1990 soft plus hard coal plus imported power=
170.9 + 140.8 -
in 2013 soft plus hard coal plus imported power=
162.0 + 124.0 + 33.0 = 319.0
Again, I'm assuming the imported power is coal. It could be anything but I'm pretty sure it isn't imported wind power. It could be hydro. Who knows. I'm assuming coal or nuclear.
Tell me if you think I'm being unfair with the numbers. I'm just adding things up.
Alright... Processing:
lignite --- Soft coal
nuclear energy
hard coal
natural gas
petroleum products
renewable
among them
- Wind power
- Hydropower
- biomass
- Photovoltaic
- Household waste
Other sources of energy
That is the full list. Lets first look at the total gross power generation:
1990-2013
549,9 540,2 538,2 527,1 528,5 536,8 552,7 552,3 557,2 556,3 576,6 586,4 586,7 608,8 617,5 622,6 639,6 640,6 640,7 595,6** 633,0 613,1 629,8 629,0
**outlier.
We can see that with the exception of a big drop in 2009 the energy generation is stable or rising.
In 2013 total renewable production was:
49,8
21,2
42,6
28,3
5,2
25,9
= 173***
***This number is wrong. I think I'm double counting something. But I don't think it will matter for our purposes here. For the sake of argument I'll let the renewables be slightly over represented.
Which is very impressive. Its about germany's total nuclear production at its peak. I do question if we can do an apples to apples comparison there because I doubt you can rely on the power in the same way you can rely on the nuclear power. But its still impressive.
Looking at the data, we can see that coal is down a little but not much and nuclear power is still at about 2/3rds of its peak production.
The german renewables program at best accounts for about 27.5 percent of total production. Again, I am hesitant to give it this designation because the power is not reliable and so must be backstopped with something else. But by the chart and for the sake of argument that is 27.5*** percent. Which is very impressive.
Going further, it looks like germany is importing more energy then they did in the past. In fact, I think they used to be net producers. I rather doubt the imported power is renewable so we are going to have to count that as coal/nuclear power. It could be hydro if you can provide some documentation for that. But I suspect it is either coal, nuclear, or natural gas from eastern europe.
I am looking at this section:
Flows from abroad
Current flows in the foreign
Current exchange balance abroad
In 1990 it was basically neutral and you can see from year to year it tends to be a small number. But in 2006 it went into double digits and was 33 TWh in 2013.
Going over the rest of the graph it just seems to break this out by percentage which we could easily derive ourselves from the first graph.
So okay, using only this as data do you see the devil in the details? Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it looks like they're importing more power probably from fossil fuel sources which has to be accounted for if you're going to make an AGW argument.
The climate is GLOBAL. Simply having your coal burned in another country doesn't mean it doesn't count. Burn it on mars if you want to do that and I'd say fine. But if its burned on planet earth it has to be accounted for if we are talking about AGW.
So lets look at the reductions fossil fuel energy:
In so far as soft coal is concerned, it doesn't appear to be in decline. It goes up and down but if anything it is on an upward trend.
Nuclear power is down about 50-70 TWh off its peak. Or roughly 2/3rds of peak. 40 of which dropped off the grid in 2011.
Looking at the data in 2011 most of the slack was taken up by "renewables".
Then we have hard coal which at its peak was about 150 TWh and in 2013 was 124 TWh.
***I should note again that I think I double counted something in the renewable list which has slightly inflated the amount of renewable energy being produced. I don't think it matters right now but I'll figure that out later if it turns out that it distorts my numbers too much.
From what I can see, the only real reduction in fossil fuel use has been the fall in hard coal from 150 at its peak which was honestly an unusually high year to what it is today around 125. So we're talking about a reduction in
I question whether the new plants are counted in your statistic. It might only count primary power facilities.
Keep in mind Germany is decommissioning its nuclear power plants. To say their coal power production has fallen not increased suggests that either renewables are entirely picking up the slack from the combined nuclear power facilities in Germany. Or you're saying energy consumption in germany has fallen rather dramatically. Or... where is the power coming from?
I grant that the renewables are providing power. I question whether they've not only replaced the nuclear power plants entirely but have also exceeded their production to replace 5 percent of the coal power plants.
In the context of a coal power plant building boom and the fact that this is a very political issue... I question whether someone is playing with YOUR statistics. You must concede that politically sensitive statistics are frequently manipulated and should never be accepted without audit.
To that end, I would like a source on your information so that I can attempt an audit of the statistic.
Provide that source information please or I have to simply invalidate the citation entirely which leave you with no basis what so ever.
You can't cite all military spending in the middle east as oil subsidies.
No one accepts that association outside outside of the crackpots.
And you're right, I did just use an ad hominem but your argument is about as silly as claiming the Apollo moon landings didn't happen or that the world is only 6000 years old.
It would also be ad hominem to suggest that the only people that believe those things are also crack pots. And the point is that with all three of those arguments, I really shouldn't have to explain this to you.
You can't use that one word you arbitrarily don't like which was a concluding statement to invalidate the argument which preceded it.
Try again.
If I made an argument and then concluded with "bazinga", my argument would not be invalid because I said bazinga at the end.
... For coal power plants that are backstopping the renewable system. That fact is at odds with his statements. They are backstopping their renewable program with coal power plants... not choreography.
The problem with this idea is that the renewable systems often will not produce enough PERIOD. Not because they can't but because environmental conditions at that exact time mean the power is not there. If the wind doesn't blow and the sun is down... where is your power coming from? Now you could say "if you make the grid big enough, there will be somewhere that has sun and wind." Fine. But that is going to mean transporting power thousands of miles in some cases which means you're going to lose a fair amount to transmission. And even then the idea is pretty dubious on that scale.
I would argue that we need one of two things.
1. A break through in storage.
2. Reliable power generation to backstop the system.
What is more, wind and solar are not actually this cheap... they're only that cheap WITH subsidies. And it the growth of these subsidies that is largely pushing the prices at this point.
Here someone says "oil is subsidized too!"... yeah but not to the same relative extent. In absolute terms oil might get the same amount of money but its a vastly larger industry so the point doesn't really mean anything.
Anyway, I'm not arguing in favor of oil. I'd love for everything to go all electric. BUT we need to not cripple ourselves in the process.
Rather then looking for and identifying bad software... look for and identify good software. White lists deal with zero days. Set up security so that all unknown code is forbidden. Obviously let the user if they have permissions exempt unknown code from the security. But anything else... no execution.
Include scripts, etc.
Assuming you ran that program, would you feel safe running it on your actual computer on your actual network?
I wouldn't. Its basically a free for all VPN that you throw on your machine. Anyone could use that thing. yeah, people in repressive regimes trying to be free. Also terrorists and pedophiles.
And lets not forget hackers that want to exploit your good will to gain access to your system.
Now lets assume you really want to help so you're going to run this thing. What sort of precautions would you have to take to do it responsibly?
I'm thinking I would have to run it sandboxed or VMed somehow. Or on a spare machine that I don't care about. Possibly on a raspberry pi because why not.
Then I'm thinking it would have to be on a different VLAN. Because I am sure as hell not sharing a private network with that thing.
And even then I'm thinking that isn't enough because what is to stop the hacker that takes control of the raspberry pi on VLAN2 from simply hacking the router, gaining access to VLAN1, and then proceeding to rape my network from the inside out?
You see the problem. I like the idea of this thing. I just can't trust it. Maybe if I put it on a hosted system data center or something and let them deal with it. After all they have no reason to trust anyone that hosts programs on their systems. They should firewall everything from everything else as a matter of course.
Does it make any sense to bridge the first router that creates VLAN2 to a second router so that if someone accesses the gateway they won't actually be accessing the router that controls the VLANs? That is, bridge a second router on VLAN2 to the port and let it act as the gateway for the suspect system?
Would that make this operation safe or is this just needless abstraction that doesn't accomplish anything?
They can stop pay services but they can't stop free services. lets say you just list that you're taking a ride from point X to point Y and would be willing to pick up anyone along the way.
How can that be illegal. Now do you want to pick up a total stranger? Maybe not. But then maybe the culture will change where you'll be okay with that.
I don't mind the brain washing of the legal profession or as I prefer to think of it "programming"... the issue is that the programming must create consistently competent and ethical legal professionals.
If its not doing that then I question what the point of the programming is and if it was established correctly. If done properly, it should condition legal professionals to all think in a certain way that is useful to the legal system's purpose which is the administration of legal justice.
throw kids in front of some machines and see if they can run the war...
If your goal is to just scapegoat the tech department every time you want to do something illegal then its not in the interest of any competent professional programmer or IT admin to deal with you.
The best you can get are low wage contractors from india or other assorted flunkies that will doubtless cock up anything complicated and deliver consistent failure. at inflated prices.
So really in your example it just sounds like the people making choices need to be given fewer or perhaps no responsibilities.
... And process this literally. What he is suggesting is that engineers need to have more control over projects and feel that their contributions make a difference.
The insulting language I believe was put in to get the arrogant incompetent government drones to pay attention to it. See, we can do insulting too.
But strip out the insulting back and forth and see the literal message. He's suggesting that engineers be given some control and leeway to manage projects. He's also suggesting that those projects will be more successful if the engineers are allowed to control the direction of them to some extent.
Now, who here disagrees that that would be a bad idea? It is precisely the lack of that that makes those sorts of jobs intolerable. You're often dealing with a badly designed system that wants to be upgraded into an even more badly designed system and you're being judged on how well this badly designed system works.
On top of that, the system whether well or poorly designed isn't doing anything interesting or often even useful.
So yeah, I think the stuffed shirts have every reason to express their needs in a vague sense. Because they don't actually know what they want specifically. But the actual implementation and specific design should be handled by the engineers with a great deal of flexibility.
Fine... to that I counter that we should actually be worried about space beavers from mars raping fastfood workers.
Its never happened before... but there is my made up example of it happening.
Equally valid.
Kindly provide a basis for taking your point seriously or I get to cite space beavers... and anything else.
There is evidence of incompetence in the department as in many. Clean house, set standards, level the blame where it belongs, and move on.
Lazy and ignorant patent judges are the problem.
They allow people to patent stupid things that shouldn't be patentable THAT is the problem. Not patents themselves.
The NSA's reputation has been annihilated. There are good people that work for such organizations. People that could and do benefit our society on a regular basis. Their institution was simply coopted by irresponsible people that sadly destroyed everything. Its a shame.
the Moto X from Verizon version 4.4.2?
there are a lot of locked bootloaders out there that so far don't seem to be breached.
Its the common denominator. The rot is concentrated in union controlled areas.
Look, you want to draw this out into some sort of extended debate? It doesn't matter. The areas where your idea is applied are dying. All I have to do to win is wait.
I wish you were reasonable. But you're not. So fine.
It is people like you that force every situation to be resolved with some sort of power play because you're utterly unreasonable. Nothing short of a loaded gun against you forehead with a cocked hammer ever makes you stop.
What I want is to be left alone. What you want is to control everything. My goal might be selfish or whatever silly insult you might wish to throw at it. But its at least obtainable. Your goal... its as impossible as it is self destructive.
Except for the auto industry is doing quite well outside of Detroit. We're seeing expansion and growth while everything the unions control withers.
It doesn't matter... the militant unions are well on their way to killing themselves. And then we have only the government unions to deal with... a much bigger problem. But then some of them have gone so far as to bankrupt the cities and states they've dominated. So we'll see what happens.
I know police officers that brag about having politicians in their pockets. I know teachers that confide that they're terrified of reprisals from the local union reps over the most petty of issues. This is what happens when you empower such entities without restraint or oversight. People run wild.
Things that can't go on forever... do not. This business model is rapidly running out of time. And when it does... you'll likely propose something closer to full state socialism or something equally hilariously inept.
But then you'll be in the position of the Venezuelans as well as turning the US into a true banana republic. You see... even with total power you still need to make the system work. And it doesn't so you won't... and thus there will be shortages, brown outs, water will get cut off, whole civic institutions will collapse...
At some point, you either deal with empirical reality and set success as the first criteria. Or you're setting everyone that associates with you up for suffering.
A fair number of them only signed those contracts because they really didn't have a choice.
That is supposed to be one the good things about unions. Leverage.
Well, with leverage comes responsibility. If you force companies to comply with your rules then you should be judged for the consequences.
Often as not, they're also compelled by law to obey the unions. The department of labor was set up largely to make the unions even more powerful which had the disastrous results of turning America's manufacturing centers into "the rust belt".
Do I hold the CEO's blameless? No. They could have escaped the trap in much the same way a trapped animal can chew its own arm off to escape. I'd much rather they had done that because it would have been better for the country in the long run if the unions had been resisted more absolutely to the point of corporate destruction. But corporations aren't built like that. They're built to make money. Not have principles or see the long term damages to cultures.
This is ultimately on us as citizens. Part of not having rulers and kings is taking responsibility. The American people collectively have screwed their own country up with a lot of this crap.
The good news is that the hostile politically active unions in the private sector are isolated, demoralized, and shrinking. There are good unions in the US. But you rarely hear about them because they're ACTUALLY concerned with their workers and their industries rather then being proxies for national political games.
I have no problem with the good unions. They are generally well liked by the industries they operate in and don't involve member dues in causes that do not involve the job and industry interests of their workers.
Sure. Just so long as you stop calling kings, "kings" if they do bad things in certain areas of the world. After all, kings sounds like a nice word. Really only good rulers should be allowed to call themselves kings.
And we might as well rename countries or nations that do bad things something besides countries or nations.
And lets do that with world leaders. After all, not all world leaders are bad. But if we call both good and bad world leaders the same name its confusing... right?
All we have to do is get the bad unions in the US to agree with you and stop calling themselves unions.
As soon as that is accomplished, I'd be happy to stop calling them unions.
Until then, their actions reflect upon the whole institution just as any other associated actor reflects upon its peers.
To suggest otherwise is render oneself absurd.
You seriously want to play semantic games with me?
Here is the point which you're not getting.
You do not live here. You do not understand what we deal with. You do not know our history. You do not know what we are talking about.
Now if I were start lecturing YOU on union in Australia, I think you'd feel that was a bit silly. Wouldn't you?
In the United States, we have unions. They have a history. We know them better then you ever will.
They have earned a bad reputation for certain types of behavior.
You want to talk about how they could be good if they didn't do the bad things? Well sure... any bad thing would be fine if it didn't do the bad things. Genius observation there.
The point is that in the US, we have a lot of unions that have done bad things. So many people are not going to be very receptive to expanding their power.
END OF STORY.
Good day, sir.
Right, because industry is collapsing everywhere in the US...
Oh wait, no it isn't... its just collapsed in places the unions dominate.
I really have no patience for this level of blindness. You want to sign a suicide pact with your ideology?
Go for it. Just leave my name off the list. Your foolishness has destroyed everything its touched. What little growth we have at this point is only found where fools like you have no sway at all.