They accept piracy. If they accept piracy and stop persecuting the practice then all these stupid copyright laws are fine.
I can't resell something I bought? fine... I can take the money I didn't make selling it and put that towards a pirated copy.
Happy publishing industry?
The sad thing is that a resale market might actually get people to treat this stuff like property again. But if its set up as a system where only they own anything then... fine. We'll see what the market has to say about that.
EPA regs are based on science if the science is reproducible and transparent.
If they're neither then they're not.
End of discussion.
You want to claim you're backed by science? Show a LITTLE scientific integrity. If you have no respect for basic scientific practice then you deserve ZERO scientific credit. None. Nada. Zilch.
Whitelisting works against a lot of things. It doesn't work against things that look enough like the program to sneak through or against hack systems that are outside your system probing for weaknesses.
Not only do you need a white listing system you need portions of the network that are hardcoded. Literally impossible to change because the coding is set in stone. You can have firmware in those systems but the firmware has to be READ ONLY. Possibly you could have a PHYSICAL switch that enabled read/write to the firmware or make it a removable chip that can be inserted elsewhere for editing. But when in the machine under normal operation... most of your core infrastructure must be hardcoded. Unchangable.
Beyond that, many systems should not only be hardcoded but also very simple. Simple systems that can only work one way and no other can't be hacked. You can hack something behind them often but you can't hack them directly because there is nothing you can do to them. That is a strength. You know in the event of a breach that those assets were not at fault.
1. They know you got paid by SOMEONE or paid SOMEONE but not who or for what or by whom.
2. As to the anti laundering people... its all about how you randomly exchange the bitcoins.
Provide a place where people can swap bitcoins with anyone. Then let nature take its course. The bitcoins are inherently decentralized so it won't take much and your involvement doesn't have to be direct. As such they won't be able to hold anyone responsible.
3. There are many forms of payment. The trick is to avoid dollars. The whole point was to avoid dollars.
See this as the US government giving you an incentive to avoid dollars. Stay out of dollars and their ability to track you is minimal. If you move from bitcoins, to bonds, to commodities, then you stay out of dollars. Its not easy but that was the point of bitcoin in the first place. Giving us freedom from the system. Then you complain that you're not connected enough to it. At some point you need need to convert your money into dollars... if only to pay the bills. But if its enough money you can afford to go through some of the more elaborate schemes that still work.
You don't launder your money by hiding who gave and received dollars. That's how you get the government all over you.
Rather, you anonmymize the bitcoins. Very simply... they buy bitcoins for dollars. You log everything in compliance with all their stupid laws.
Then you have everyone randomly swap bitcoins with each other so its impossible to know who got which ones.
Will the government still know you received some money? Sure. Good luck hiding that in any case. But this way at least they won't know where it came from or what you bought.
Wrong. Hackers hack by exploiting flexibility in a system to be multiple things. If a given system is so simple it can LITERALLY only work one way then it cannot be hacked.
Effectively you have to make things that are non-programmable. Or that have their programming hardwired/hardcoded. No flexibility.
You set them up once to do a job and then leave them alone. Core systems can be set up this way and should be set up this way. They cannot get viruses. They cannot get taken over. They are what they are... end of story.
It is entirely possible to set things up that way. It simply requires pre-planning and ruthless adherence to standards.
Wrong. It isn't impossible to hack it. And therefore it will be hacked.
Systems too simple to be hacked can't be hacked. They are secure. Everything else is second class.
People need to stop cutting security corners. This chicken shit security no longer an option.
Perfect security is possible. It requires sacrifice. You need to limit complexity. You need to limit what can and cannot be done. Do that and you leave little wiggle room for hackers to exploit. Anything short of that and you're better that you are smarter then the hacker. Which is hubris.
Complexity is a vulnerability. Simplicity is a strength.
If something is just too simple to be modified or hacked or manipulated by anyone including the rightful owners then its too simple to be perverted by a hostile agent. Simplicity is frequently a virtue.
That said, maybe the real solution is for everyone to have cameras running on them all the time.
We've been amused of late by motorists in Russia sharing their dash cams with youtube. Apparently that's a thing in Russia... dash cams. Maybe as we push into the 21st century there is an increasing need for pedestrians to have recording devices on their persons at all times in the event of police harassment.
Its an arms race. Yes, hypersonic missiles will render obsolete different types of interceptors. However, hypersonic missiles tend to have shorter ranges as they burn their fuel less efficiently. As as result, missile interceptors at longer range will probably be effective. Closer in... Lasers... or something else fast enough to deal with such a missile.
Its all a tug of war.
First thing's first... we need to render all legacy systems obsolete. The current missile defense system should be able to protect us from any of the older threats pretty much with impunity.
Good.
Then we only have to worry about the newer ones and most countries don't have access to that tech. The Russians... the Chinese... who else? So that means the only systems capable of getting through are modern russian and chinese tech. Which neither power has in great supply and neither power is likely to use unless they want to go for WW3.
Which doesn't mean we develop no counter to such weapons. Merely that we invest our resources in an efficient manner to counter threats.
I agree... I prefer this layout but possibly I'm just being stubborn. Still, I don't like being forced to change. I like to change because I want to change not because someone tells me to change.
They're not reasonable. You can't strike any sort of deal with them on any sort of rational basis.
Here are your options.
1. Over power them politically. This is politically expensive and is pretty annoying because they won't shut up which will mean you'll have to sustain a pretty high level of political suppression for some time to come.
2. Simply confuse them. They're by definition not very observant. They track on things put in the newspaper recently and don't really follow the logic of anything through. So if you make what you're doing out of sight out of mind... they tend to leave you alone. For example, we've moved most of our coal power generation to China where its a lot dirtier then it was in the US and they have no control over it. What do you think happens when industry is closed down or priced out of the US for environmental reasons? It goes over seas where the same thing happens with no restrictions. Mission accomplished, dipshits.
3. Pay off the leaders. Many times the organizers are little more then glorified shakedown artists. They'll want millions. But if you pay them they should be able to contain the gaggle of fools the follow them. This will mean striking up an alliance with the likes of Al Gore... but those are the sorts that control this monster.
Short of that... not much you can do...
Don't get me wrong, I love renewable energy. That said, I have no specific problem with any form of power generation.
Filtered coal plants are great and regardless of any regulation we will burn the coal in the ground... one way or another and eventually.
Nuclear is also pretty great. Mostly because its so compact. Mostly great for mobile high power platforms. We have nuke subs for example that were fueled when they were initially built and have been in continuous operation for 30 years. That beats the pants off gasoline.
Here is what renewable needs:
1. Cheap storage. Something like flywheels or ultra capacitors. Batteries are a non starter.
2. Decentralized generation. Ideally on top of your actual house. A percentage of power is lost in transmission over long distances. A percentage of power is lost meeting demand largely by over supplying a bit... there are other things that each shave their percentage off the total. Add them all up and its a significant amount of power. If the power were provided locally you'd get most of that back.
3. Extremely cheap solar panels. We need something so cheap that you can put it on every surface without thinking about the cost. The efficiency doesn't have to be great. It just needs to be insanely cheap. Do that, and then link everything up to that... and then maybe you'll need a few high efficiency cells.
Get everyone running mostly on their own generation and they'll start conserving power. Not because they want to conserve but because they would run out of power otherwise.
Ideally do the same thing with water as well... at least in so far as having a cistern that is fed from municipal supply. So if there is a disruption or there are months when the water is expensive... they can shift around. Also, in California they're talking about water rationing again. So it might be nice to just have a giant tank buried somewhere on the property and get it topped up from time to time by a water truck.
Allow the drilling and allow the refining... if you want export restrictions I don't have a problem with that.
Sorry, I live in California and we are always dealing with dishonest nonsense from people that say they don't like something... then when you do it the way they want they say they don't want that either.
A good example would be when they said they didn't like nuclear power and coal. So some solar power plants were built... and those got shut down because they impacted some desert wildlife. Its always something stupid. The net result is that you can't do anything.
Hilariously its impacting the stupid high speed train project which is getting shut down by the same silliness.
In any case, you need to appreciate that there have been a lot of dishonest actors in this pageant and it long ago stopped being about what was sensible.
All of which happened by expanding capacity at existing refineries because you cannot get new ones approved.
Have you ever seen an oil refinery... like with your own eyes?
They're massive facilities. Larger then international airports. Why? Because you can't get new ones approved. You can usually expand existing ones though.
Which means when you need oil refined it has to be shipped to a refineries that can handle the load... often on the other side of the country. Which is why the pipeline is going to Texas.
Yes, you want the oil in a place where you can ship it anywhere. But you can't deny that refineries are hard to get built in the US and many of them are closing despite a shortage of refining capacity.
The mindless crusade against oil and the ever present nimbyism has lead us to this place.
And if in that context, anyone of sense isn't going to have much patience for your argument.
Refineries are closing in the US despite a shortage of refining capacity. Why is that? Because its about 100 times harder to get a refinery built then to build a stupid pipe line. So tell you what, you pre-approve a refinery near the Canadian border and we'll stop pushing for the entirely sensible pipeline.
Short of that, you're playing an obvious shell game.
Which is why businesses can do that to each other all the time when other businesses file contracts with them.
According to you, a contract is just a license to f' someone.
Yet that isn't how it works. So clearly contracts can be constructed in such a way that that doesn't happen.
Is it flawless? Nothing is flawless. Your government regulated system isn't flawless. The only difference between what you said and what I said is that you want the government to write the contract.
That's the only difference. So under your own idea the school could have done the exact same thing if they were willing to violate a contract.
Slashdot Mirror
They accept piracy. If they accept piracy and stop persecuting the practice then all these stupid copyright laws are fine.
I can't resell something I bought? fine... I can take the money I didn't make selling it and put that towards a pirated copy.
Happy publishing industry?
The sad thing is that a resale market might actually get people to treat this stuff like property again. But if its set up as a system where only they own anything then... fine. We'll see what the market has to say about that.
How do you hack a network hub? The hub, not the router.... and I say hub instead of switch because hubs are even more simplistic then switches.
A basic hub is unhackable. It does what it does.
Forgive me for oversimplifying my argument. My point stands that perfect security is possible and for backbone systems it should be required.
EPA regs are based on science if the science is reproducible and transparent.
If they're neither then they're not.
End of discussion.
You want to claim you're backed by science? Show a LITTLE scientific integrity. If you have no respect for basic scientific practice then you deserve ZERO scientific credit. None. Nada. Zilch.
The rules are very simple. Follow them.
Whitelisting works against a lot of things. It doesn't work against things that look enough like the program to sneak through or against hack systems that are outside your system probing for weaknesses.
Not only do you need a white listing system you need portions of the network that are hardcoded. Literally impossible to change because the coding is set in stone. You can have firmware in those systems but the firmware has to be READ ONLY. Possibly you could have a PHYSICAL switch that enabled read/write to the firmware or make it a removable chip that can be inserted elsewhere for editing. But when in the machine under normal operation... most of your core infrastructure must be hardcoded. Unchangable.
Beyond that, many systems should not only be hardcoded but also very simple. Simple systems that can only work one way and no other can't be hacked. You can hack something behind them often but you can't hack them directly because there is nothing you can do to them. That is a strength. You know in the event of a breach that those assets were not at fault.
1. They know you got paid by SOMEONE or paid SOMEONE but not who or for what or by whom.
2. As to the anti laundering people... its all about how you randomly exchange the bitcoins.
Provide a place where people can swap bitcoins with anyone. Then let nature take its course. The bitcoins are inherently decentralized so it won't take much and your involvement doesn't have to be direct. As such they won't be able to hold anyone responsible.
3. There are many forms of payment. The trick is to avoid dollars. The whole point was to avoid dollars.
See this as the US government giving you an incentive to avoid dollars. Stay out of dollars and their ability to track you is minimal. If you move from bitcoins, to bonds, to commodities, then you stay out of dollars. Its not easy but that was the point of bitcoin in the first place. Giving us freedom from the system. Then you complain that you're not connected enough to it. At some point you need need to convert your money into dollars... if only to pay the bills. But if its enough money you can afford to go through some of the more elaborate schemes that still work.
You don't launder your money by hiding who gave and received dollars. That's how you get the government all over you.
Rather, you anonmymize the bitcoins. Very simply... they buy bitcoins for dollars. You log everything in compliance with all their stupid laws.
Then you have everyone randomly swap bitcoins with each other so its impossible to know who got which ones.
Will the government still know you received some money? Sure. Good luck hiding that in any case. But this way at least they won't know where it came from or what you bought.
Wrong. Hackers hack by exploiting flexibility in a system to be multiple things. If a given system is so simple it can LITERALLY only work one way then it cannot be hacked.
Effectively you have to make things that are non-programmable. Or that have their programming hardwired/hardcoded. No flexibility.
You set them up once to do a job and then leave them alone. Core systems can be set up this way and should be set up this way. They cannot get viruses. They cannot get taken over. They are what they are... end of story.
It is entirely possible to set things up that way. It simply requires pre-planning and ruthless adherence to standards.
Wrong. It isn't impossible to hack it. And therefore it will be hacked.
Systems too simple to be hacked can't be hacked. They are secure. Everything else is second class.
People need to stop cutting security corners. This chicken shit security no longer an option.
Perfect security is possible. It requires sacrifice. You need to limit complexity. You need to limit what can and cannot be done. Do that and you leave little wiggle room for hackers to exploit. Anything short of that and you're better that you are smarter then the hacker. Which is hubris.
Complexity is a vulnerability. Simplicity is a strength.
If something is just too simple to be modified or hacked or manipulated by anyone including the rightful owners then its too simple to be perverted by a hostile agent. Simplicity is frequently a virtue.
I don't see that going through the court.
That said, maybe the real solution is for everyone to have cameras running on them all the time.
We've been amused of late by motorists in Russia sharing their dash cams with youtube. Apparently that's a thing in Russia... dash cams. Maybe as we push into the 21st century there is an increasing need for pedestrians to have recording devices on their persons at all times in the event of police harassment.
and make it available for the defense... or its a bad idea.
Not if the methodology is fully disclosed which should be a prerequisite to peer review.
It isn't science if it isn't transparent and reproducible.
End of discussion.
Unlikely.
They sell things they're not afraid of other people having.
They don't sell their top of the line kit unless they're not afraid of it. And if they're not... then neither should we.
Seriously... do you know how many russian tanks we popped in Iraq? It was funny.
Its an arms race. Yes, hypersonic missiles will render obsolete different types of interceptors. However, hypersonic missiles tend to have shorter ranges as they burn their fuel less efficiently. As as result, missile interceptors at longer range will probably be effective. Closer in... Lasers... or something else fast enough to deal with such a missile.
Its all a tug of war.
First thing's first... we need to render all legacy systems obsolete. The current missile defense system should be able to protect us from any of the older threats pretty much with impunity.
Good.
Then we only have to worry about the newer ones and most countries don't have access to that tech. The Russians... the Chinese... who else? So that means the only systems capable of getting through are modern russian and chinese tech. Which neither power has in great supply and neither power is likely to use unless they want to go for WW3.
Which doesn't mean we develop no counter to such weapons. Merely that we invest our resources in an efficient manner to counter threats.
I agree... I prefer this layout but possibly I'm just being stubborn. Still, I don't like being forced to change. I like to change because I want to change not because someone tells me to change.
They're not reasonable. You can't strike any sort of deal with them on any sort of rational basis.
Here are your options.
1. Over power them politically. This is politically expensive and is pretty annoying because they won't shut up which will mean you'll have to sustain a pretty high level of political suppression for some time to come.
2. Simply confuse them. They're by definition not very observant. They track on things put in the newspaper recently and don't really follow the logic of anything through. So if you make what you're doing out of sight out of mind... they tend to leave you alone. For example, we've moved most of our coal power generation to China where its a lot dirtier then it was in the US and they have no control over it. What do you think happens when industry is closed down or priced out of the US for environmental reasons? It goes over seas where the same thing happens with no restrictions. Mission accomplished, dipshits.
3. Pay off the leaders. Many times the organizers are little more then glorified shakedown artists. They'll want millions. But if you pay them they should be able to contain the gaggle of fools the follow them. This will mean striking up an alliance with the likes of Al Gore... but those are the sorts that control this monster.
Short of that... not much you can do...
Don't get me wrong, I love renewable energy. That said, I have no specific problem with any form of power generation.
Filtered coal plants are great and regardless of any regulation we will burn the coal in the ground... one way or another and eventually.
Nuclear is also pretty great. Mostly because its so compact. Mostly great for mobile high power platforms. We have nuke subs for example that were fueled when they were initially built and have been in continuous operation for 30 years. That beats the pants off gasoline.
Here is what renewable needs:
1. Cheap storage. Something like flywheels or ultra capacitors. Batteries are a non starter.
2. Decentralized generation. Ideally on top of your actual house. A percentage of power is lost in transmission over long distances. A percentage of power is lost meeting demand largely by over supplying a bit... there are other things that each shave their percentage off the total. Add them all up and its a significant amount of power. If the power were provided locally you'd get most of that back.
3. Extremely cheap solar panels. We need something so cheap that you can put it on every surface without thinking about the cost. The efficiency doesn't have to be great. It just needs to be insanely cheap. Do that, and then link everything up to that... and then maybe you'll need a few high efficiency cells.
Get everyone running mostly on their own generation and they'll start conserving power. Not because they want to conserve but because they would run out of power otherwise.
Ideally do the same thing with water as well... at least in so far as having a cistern that is fed from municipal supply. So if there is a disruption or there are months when the water is expensive... they can shift around. Also, in California they're talking about water rationing again. So it might be nice to just have a giant tank buried somewhere on the property and get it topped up from time to time by a water truck.
No one needs to use their products. This puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
Indifferent to anything else, this is a stupid business decision. Who is management at this company and why are they incompetent?
I'm fine with that.
Allow the drilling and allow the refining... if you want export restrictions I don't have a problem with that.
Sorry, I live in California and we are always dealing with dishonest nonsense from people that say they don't like something... then when you do it the way they want they say they don't want that either.
A good example would be when they said they didn't like nuclear power and coal. So some solar power plants were built... and those got shut down because they impacted some desert wildlife. Its always something stupid. The net result is that you can't do anything.
Hilariously its impacting the stupid high speed train project which is getting shut down by the same silliness.
In any case, you need to appreciate that there have been a lot of dishonest actors in this pageant and it long ago stopped being about what was sensible.
All of which happened by expanding capacity at existing refineries because you cannot get new ones approved.
Have you ever seen an oil refinery... like with your own eyes?
They're massive facilities. Larger then international airports. Why? Because you can't get new ones approved. You can usually expand existing ones though.
Which means when you need oil refined it has to be shipped to a refineries that can handle the load... often on the other side of the country. Which is why the pipeline is going to Texas.
Actually you're wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...
Kindly don't contradict people that are right.
Actually that's only part of it.
Yes, you want the oil in a place where you can ship it anywhere. But you can't deny that refineries are hard to get built in the US and many of them are closing despite a shortage of refining capacity.
The mindless crusade against oil and the ever present nimbyism has lead us to this place.
And if in that context, anyone of sense isn't going to have much patience for your argument.
Refineries are closing in the US despite a shortage of refining capacity. Why is that? Because its about 100 times harder to get a refinery built then to build a stupid pipe line. So tell you what, you pre-approve a refinery near the Canadian border and we'll stop pushing for the entirely sensible pipeline.
Short of that, you're playing an obvious shell game.
Which is why businesses can do that to each other all the time when other businesses file contracts with them.
According to you, a contract is just a license to f' someone.
Yet that isn't how it works. So clearly contracts can be constructed in such a way that that doesn't happen.
Is it flawless? Nothing is flawless. Your government regulated system isn't flawless. The only difference between what you said and what I said is that you want the government to write the contract.
That's the only difference. So under your own idea the school could have done the exact same thing if they were willing to violate a contract.
Please be sensible.