Secret associations. There's the file and the modification to the file and back up hard copy unaltered files that will be consulted prior to doing anything. But if someone goes rifling through things why not make the crap convenient.
I'm just saying you're not going to stop every intrusion. So why not plan for a successful intrusion to work for you. I wouldn't go so far as to give them bogus plans mostly because I don't want to give them even that much. I want to track the intrusion. Maybe make it easy to get in using some cheap tricks but make it so it's very very hard to get in without getting logged.
Thus most attackers will get in feeling like it's easy... and little do they know the whole IT department just lit up like a christmas tree.
You have to take the random anti american trolls in stride... we do... They're shambling zombies littering the post apocalyptic political wasteland that is their ideology. Scrapping around... medically dead... moaning for brains.
Best you can do is stock lots of food and assume a defensible position. They'll burn themselves out eventually.
Letting hackers half way into your system especially when you're dealing with state sponsored hacking groups or corporate espionage is not a horrible idea so long as you make it work for you.
After all even though they're in your systems you have have an opportunity to log them in a way that you don't if they're just scrapping on the outside. Build a multi-tiered defense and let them get all the information that you don't actually care about. For example... promotional information and publicly released data. You can also have dummy files thrown around with garbage data filled in rather then the real specs. Have fun with it. But the really secret stuff... consider not having that on the network at all. If you're talking about top secret information... maybe that calls for an armed courier.
How funny is it that right after he says "I know there is a lot of controversy on this issue" the site melts down.
Anyway, starwars has a lot of good points. It has much better music and the first three movies are better then all the other trek movies combined. I mean you can watch that with the whole family. But trek is science fiction even though they get a little deus ex machina sometimes with the technology. What is relevant is that the technology itself is relevant. The story wouldn't make sense if it weren't in space. Starwars could be be easily rewritten to be a real fantasy story. So make darth vader an evil black knight, the falcon can be a sailing ship or just done away with... The story and everything that happens in it doesn't need to be in space or the future. It's really a fantasy story imposed on a science fiction theme.
There isn't anything wrong with that... it's just clearly not the same thing.
All you'd want is a mechanic in the game that noticed what people were doing and if you didn't want them doing it... punishing them.
For example, if you're doing a modern war simulator then killing civilians will probably get you arrested or shot by your own forces. Stop and imagine what someone would do if a soldier just randomly started shooting women and children... not in the heat of combat or some other situation where perhaps the fog of war could obscure things. But I mean on an otherwise peaceful street in the middle of a patrol or something.
They'd tackle him and possibly just shoot him on the spot. No one is going to put up with some guy in an unstable part of the world, with a machine gun, who has completely cracked.
So I say add the feature but also put in a realistic response to it.
Rather then turning the civilians into some sick trophy that a player could pick off for giggles... instead turn them into obstacles and hazards just as they are in real life. In real war there are things you can shoot/destroy and things you must avoid.
You can also add in places where maybe a soldier cries because he threw a grenade into a room and later found out that it was a family hiding in there... dead women and children... and this guy just drops to his knees and cries. It could make the game more powerful and humanize it a bit.
Very few economists of any ideological persuasion do not have respect for Marx's critic of Capitalism. It was his analysis of capitalism that earned him the professional status to propose an alternative system.
Further, very few would say that capitalism is perfect. Rather, it has a million and one problems. We stick with capitalism because it's problems are mostly small problems and there are lots of compensating advantages. Has the distinction between rich and poor increased in the last 40 years? Yes, but there are reasons for that other then shadowy conspiracies full of fat men with cigars. Issues of labor efficiency, market competition, skill depreciation, etc.
Skills that once could buy a house and raise a family are today worth less then McDonalds fry cook skills. That isn't entirely capitalism's fault. Blame innovations in manufacturing and labor competition from asia if you like but that's a pressure that would exist even if we were communists. If we instituted protectionist practices it wouldn't change our international competitiveness so much insulate uncompetitive practices within our domestic market.
Socialism and communism can't fight the future. We could impose these system with a gentle touch or an iron fist and neither system would allow a small town vacuum cleaner salesman to buy a house and raise a family doing door to door sales. In the 1950s that might have been possible due to certain things being a great deal cheaper and other things being a great deal more expensive. But market conditions have changed and that sort of labor simply isn't going to pay the bills.
I won't pretend to have all the answers... I know I don't. I'm just saying that just because Marx spotted some problems with capitalism doesn't mean he actually had practical solutions to those problems.
From the stand point of lazy central planners or jet setters this is simplifier but its more complicated for everyone else. As we're talking about 10 percent of the population versus 90 percent it's very hard to understand why anyone would think this is a good idea.
World travelers and centrally managed organizations have long ago adapted to managing multiple time zones. Local organizations do not need to generally because they assume everything is referenced to their time zone. Flipping that around helps nothing. How often do time zones really screw things up? Unless people are incompetent they're going to use an agreed upon reference.
There's no reason to force everyone to do anything. If the government wants to use EST as their standard reference they're welcome to do it. People in PST or MST are well aware of that sort of thing and make accommodations for it.
Here's a better question, because we have computers who cares since the computers can automatically compensate for time zone differences. Do people have electronic calenders? These things adjust for time zone already. So there's no need.
He has not released his raw data. He has not released his methodology.
It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results.
Thus peer review is impossible.
How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed?
Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple.
The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable.
CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect.
Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about.
And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves.
Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer.
Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not mu
He has not released his raw data.
He has not released his methodology.
It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results.
Thus peer review is impossible.
How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed?
Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple.
The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable.
CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect.
Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about.
And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves.
Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer.
Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not much of a science. That means their answer is also an au
These two comments underline the problem with keeping the space program in the government's hands. The reality is that the political divides within the US are making US governance dysfunctional and ultimately everything that we wish to remain reliable must be isolated or abstracted away from the ebb and flow of the two parties war over control. Doubtless both sides will say the best solution is for the other side to submit to it's power but that seems unlikely.
If carried to an extreme that will mean the end of the republic as all decisions will be in the hands of the unelected.
The democrats hate the space program except when they love it and the republicans love the space program except when they hate it. There's little rhyme or reason to it. They're both playing to the crowd when they think it will win them votes and when not they'll loot the budget for other programs or ideas.
Who trusts they'll keep funding space programs and who even trusts that NASA is doing a good job of allocating what resources it gets? We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things.
A private sector space industry if it can actually be nurtured into existence will self sustain, self direct, and be both beyond the inevitable chaos of US politics without requiring the republic to chain itself to an endless system of unalterable rules.
So that is why I find the private sector model appealing. I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate despite the fact that we all depend upon the corporations as economic institutions. Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people. Just an observation.
Slashdot Mirror
They copied enough things bolt for bolt to earn that little treat.
Secret associations. There's the file and the modification to the file and back up hard copy unaltered files that will be consulted prior to doing anything. But if someone goes rifling through things why not make the crap convenient.
I'm just saying you're not going to stop every intrusion. So why not plan for a successful intrusion to work for you. I wouldn't go so far as to give them bogus plans mostly because I don't want to give them even that much. I want to track the intrusion. Maybe make it easy to get in using some cheap tricks but make it so it's very very hard to get in without getting logged.
Thus most attackers will get in feeling like it's easy... and little do they know the whole IT department just lit up like a christmas tree.
Just an idea.
You have to take the random anti american trolls in stride... we do... They're shambling zombies littering the post apocalyptic political wasteland that is their ideology. Scrapping around... medically dead... moaning for brains.
Best you can do is stock lots of food and assume a defensible position. They'll burn themselves out eventually.
Letting hackers half way into your system especially when you're dealing with state sponsored hacking groups or corporate espionage is not a horrible idea so long as you make it work for you.
After all even though they're in your systems you have have an opportunity to log them in a way that you don't if they're just scrapping on the outside. Build a multi-tiered defense and let them get all the information that you don't actually care about. For example... promotional information and publicly released data. You can also have dummy files thrown around with garbage data filled in rather then the real specs. Have fun with it. But the really secret stuff... consider not having that on the network at all. If you're talking about top secret information... maybe that calls for an armed courier.
How funny is it that right after he says "I know there is a lot of controversy on this issue" the site melts down.
Anyway, starwars has a lot of good points. It has much better music and the first three movies are better then all the other trek movies combined. I mean you can watch that with the whole family. But trek is science fiction even though they get a little deus ex machina sometimes with the technology. What is relevant is that the technology itself is relevant. The story wouldn't make sense if it weren't in space. Starwars could be be easily rewritten to be a real fantasy story. So make darth vader an evil black knight, the falcon can be a sailing ship or just done away with... The story and everything that happens in it doesn't need to be in space or the future. It's really a fantasy story imposed on a science fiction theme.
There isn't anything wrong with that... it's just clearly not the same thing.
All you'd want is a mechanic in the game that noticed what people were doing and if you didn't want them doing it... punishing them.
For example, if you're doing a modern war simulator then killing civilians will probably get you arrested or shot by your own forces. Stop and imagine what someone would do if a soldier just randomly started shooting women and children... not in the heat of combat or some other situation where perhaps the fog of war could obscure things. But I mean on an otherwise peaceful street in the middle of a patrol or something.
They'd tackle him and possibly just shoot him on the spot. No one is going to put up with some guy in an unstable part of the world, with a machine gun, who has completely cracked.
So I say add the feature but also put in a realistic response to it.
Rather then turning the civilians into some sick trophy that a player could pick off for giggles... instead turn them into obstacles and hazards just as they are in real life. In real war there are things you can shoot/destroy and things you must avoid.
You can also add in places where maybe a soldier cries because he threw a grenade into a room and later found out that it was a family hiding in there... dead women and children... and this guy just drops to his knees and cries. It could make the game more powerful and humanize it a bit.
Immersive gameplay is a good thing.
Very few economists of any ideological persuasion do not have respect for Marx's critic of Capitalism. It was his analysis of capitalism that earned him the professional status to propose an alternative system.
Further, very few would say that capitalism is perfect. Rather, it has a million and one problems. We stick with capitalism because it's problems are mostly small problems and there are lots of compensating advantages. Has the distinction between rich and poor increased in the last 40 years? Yes, but there are reasons for that other then shadowy conspiracies full of fat men with cigars. Issues of labor efficiency, market competition, skill depreciation, etc.
Skills that once could buy a house and raise a family are today worth less then McDonalds fry cook skills. That isn't entirely capitalism's fault. Blame innovations in manufacturing and labor competition from asia if you like but that's a pressure that would exist even if we were communists. If we instituted protectionist practices it wouldn't change our international competitiveness so much insulate uncompetitive practices within our domestic market.
Socialism and communism can't fight the future. We could impose these system with a gentle touch or an iron fist and neither system would allow a small town vacuum cleaner salesman to buy a house and raise a family doing door to door sales. In the 1950s that might have been possible due to certain things being a great deal cheaper and other things being a great deal more expensive. But market conditions have changed and that sort of labor simply isn't going to pay the bills.
I won't pretend to have all the answers... I know I don't. I'm just saying that just because Marx spotted some problems with capitalism doesn't mean he actually had practical solutions to those problems.
From the stand point of lazy central planners or jet setters this is simplifier but its more complicated for everyone else. As we're talking about 10 percent of the population versus 90 percent it's very hard to understand why anyone would think this is a good idea.
World travelers and centrally managed organizations have long ago adapted to managing multiple time zones. Local organizations do not need to generally because they assume everything is referenced to their time zone. Flipping that around helps nothing. How often do time zones really screw things up? Unless people are incompetent they're going to use an agreed upon reference.
There's no reason to force everyone to do anything. If the government wants to use EST as their standard reference they're welcome to do it. People in PST or MST are well aware of that sort of thing and make accommodations for it.
Here's a better question, because we have computers who cares since the computers can automatically compensate for time zone differences. Do people have electronic calenders? These things adjust for time zone already. So there's no need.
He has not released his raw data.
He has not released his methodology.
It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results.
Thus peer review is impossible.
How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed?
Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple.
The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable.
CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect.
Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about.
And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves.
Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer.
Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not mu
He has not released his raw data. He has not released his methodology. It is impossible for a peer to take the data use his methodology and verify the results. Thus peer review is impossible. How can the science be settled when the science has never been disclosed? Furthermore, I love when people point out that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of light as if anyone disputes that point. It's a complete strawman to focus on that while totally ignoring the actual objection. If the statement that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths was sufficient to prove global warming then why do any further research on it at all? I mean, if that's what it takes to settle the science and nothing more then the science should have been settled about 100 years ago. Why do we need computer models, statistical tables, and legions of scientists if it's already been proven? Because it's not that simple. The earth is not a backyard greenhouse. The earth on average radiates about as much energy back into space as it absorbs from the sun every day. Could changing the amount of CO2 in our air cause the atmosphere to retain more heat? Sure. No one disputes that it's possible. But then it might be countered by a thousand and one other things. The global climate of the planet is very stable. CO2 doomsday scenarios rely on climate forcing. Basically, they know CO2 can't change the atmosphere much... that science is also settled. However, they hypothesize that a small increase in temperature will cause a runaway effect leading to a major change in global temperature. That requires a lot of proof and the evidence for the validity of climate forcing models is VERY thin. This is where the skeptics tend to enter the discussion. The skeptics aren't saying that CO2 doesn't block certain wave lengths or that increasing CO2 can't increase world temperature. They're mostly focusing on the climate forcing models and questioning whether increasing CO2 will actually have a significant effect. Beyond that there are very real questions about the quality of historical weather station data. Again this gets complicated. You have to look at the urban heat island effect. You have to verify that weather stations weren't moved at some point during their life time. It's very common for a weather station that's been in operation for 100 years or more to have moved several times. Remember the people that poll that station don't really care if it was one degree warmer or colder 60 years ago. They mostly care about what the temperature was is today with some records going back a year or so. At no point did anyone think these stations would need to be accurate down to a tenth of a degree with that level of accuracy maintained throughout decades. Thus we get into sticky problems like how many significant digits can we honestly say we have? Expanding or contracting the data pool doesn't allow you to add significant digits. This is basic high school science education... Everyone on this site should know exactly what I'm talking about. And then making everything contentious we have trillions of dollars being threatened or demanded depending on your perspective and very contentious political rivalries that result from that. Why is it surprising that this is controversial? The only thing I find surprising is how badly the scientists have conducted themselves. Disclose the raw data. If you don't have it, then start over. It its totally unacceptable that you not have the raw data. At a time when you can buy terabyte harddrives for 100 dollars I do not want to hear about how they don't have space for the data. Either they think we're stupid enough to buy a stupid lie or they're too incompetent to maintain vital scientific records. It's one of the two and I have no patience for either answer. Disclose the methodology. Just showing your conclusions without showing how you arrived at them is an automatic F on a math exam. It's also an automatic F on a chemistry exam. I would hope it is not acceptable in climate science or it's not much of a science. That means their answer is also an au
These two comments underline the problem with keeping the space program in the government's hands. The reality is that the political divides within the US are making US governance dysfunctional and ultimately everything that we wish to remain reliable must be isolated or abstracted away from the ebb and flow of the two parties war over control. Doubtless both sides will say the best solution is for the other side to submit to it's power but that seems unlikely. If carried to an extreme that will mean the end of the republic as all decisions will be in the hands of the unelected. The democrats hate the space program except when they love it and the republicans love the space program except when they hate it. There's little rhyme or reason to it. They're both playing to the crowd when they think it will win them votes and when not they'll loot the budget for other programs or ideas. Who trusts they'll keep funding space programs and who even trusts that NASA is doing a good job of allocating what resources it gets? We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things. A private sector space industry if it can actually be nurtured into existence will self sustain, self direct, and be both beyond the inevitable chaos of US politics without requiring the republic to chain itself to an endless system of unalterable rules. So that is why I find the private sector model appealing. I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate despite the fact that we all depend upon the corporations as economic institutions. Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people. Just an observation.