My car has almost no electronics in it. Manual transmission. Manual locks. The breaks have some electronics in them but that's not interfaced with anything else. etc.
I'm getting ready to buy a new car and I'm going to make a point of either not having all that electronic shit in it in the first place or I'm getting it stripped out by a specialist and replaced with something else.
A big part of the reason a drone is cheaper than a plane is that it doesn't have to carry a person in it. No life support systems, no cockpit, no displays or controls in the plane. And it doesn't have to be designed to the same safety and recovery standards. Fire a missile at a drone and a lot of them don't even have counter measures. And if they are brought down there's no ejector seat etc.
When we talk about drone cars... they'll get cheaper if they don't have to carry humans or if the entire car can be simplified for computer only control.
The cars are going to be hybrid systems for the foreseeable future and those are not going to be cheaper because they'll involve aspects of both systems. Redundant systems increase costs. Period.
Can you explain the relevance of his citation then? I'd like to know why this matters in the context of my augment that Germany overstates its CO2 reductions by manipulating statistics by shifting carbon debt to eastern europe.
Or in the case of california... they do the same thing only with Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico... all of which have large coal fired power plants that feed a significant amount of that coal to Cali.
it isn't my only goal. The goal is to raise security to such a point that the system is not compromised while also permitting the system to be efficiently used by authorized persons.
This is obtainable. I believe I have obtained it. There is no legitimate task an employee needs to do with the system that they cannot do. I have disallowed all other things.
If they don't need to do something... then they can't. That is roughly the doctrine.
I work on a white listing philosophy.
So I basically start with an unplugged system in a cage. Then I list things that people must do and then enable functionality to see that those things can be done.
So if you need to use the machine then it needs to be plugged in.
I actually played with the idea of controlling power to the terminals based on whether an employee was supposed to be using them or not. But that seemed excessive. I do control power to certain offices and given machines. But I don't bother with the workstations.
IT security is not customer facing any more than the legal department is customer facing or the accounting department or HR or any other department designed to manage risk and see that things are done in the CORRECT way so that the organization doesn't get corn holed by being sloppy, lazy, or stupid.
You saying there is no such thing as perfect security is like saying there is no such thing as a company with competent accounting.
My cousin recently had to go to India to audit a company in Mumbai. Had a good time... but he said they had the sloppiest accounting he had ever seen. He basically had to redo everything and educate their senior accounting staff as to the importance of proper documentation.
That's a lot of what has happened to IT security over the years. The new thing kept coming out and the secured version of the new thing always lags a bit behind.
So IT was beaten into allowing the UNSECURE new thing to be the standard. You can't have security in that environment. Can't. When people say you can't have security or that all the security is flawed. That is what they mean and assume. They are basically saying... This crap can't be secured and you're going to use it so we can't have security.
Well... I would tell you to check your premises. We don't need to use that tech or that software or use it in the way a consumer would use it.
And if we do things from the ground up with security being held as sacrosanct, then we can secure the system so that it is not penetrated.
Spherical cows you say? I don't see the utility of such a cow. So the analogy makes no sense. There's no point to a spherical cow and thus no reason to try to have cows be spherical. The analogy is therefore of no utility. Use a more contextually relevant analogy please or do not use analogies. I find that many people do not use analogies to describe situations but rather use them simply to "reductio ad absurdum".
I'm not stupid. Don't use stupid arguments against me. It is neither interesting nor effective.
First, you're assuming that you only have the company phone. If you care about your privacy then just keep a personal phone as well.
Second, I can only speak for myself here... I don't care what you do with your company phone whenever it isn't accessing company information. We have a zillion minutes on the shared account. There was one guy that was having four hour conversations with someone that was surely personal and it didn't matter. The policy we have with it is that you can make all those calls so long as they're not international. Then we start to pay for that. And even then all we ask is that you pay for what those minutes cost the company. Which you'd have to do with a personal line anyway.
As to legal discovery or something. You're talking about a very hostile work environment which no one wants. Anyone that is so annoying that we start talking about about legal action is someone we want gone anyway. And a reason will be found. If we have to, we'll downsize their position which permits arbitrary dismissals. The culture where I work is that you're a company man/woman or you're gone. Legal action would only happen if you did something that involved damages or if you tried to sue the organization. And in that case, we could get your private cell phone provider to give us your records by court order without much more difficulty than we could poll the records from our own lines.
Look... you don't want to use the company phone for personal stuff? Fine. Get your own phone. Use it in health. But you're not connecting to company systems with that thing unless you're willing to hand it to me, install custom firmware on it, and have all its security settings slaved to security policy. No device that has not had that done to it is connecting.
First, I'm not an asshole... anymore than the legal team is an asshole if you open the company up to lawsuits... or the accounting team is an asshole if you don't document your expenses properly or misappropriate funds... or the HR department if you start calling coworkers racist names... etc. I'm not an asshole. I'm doing my job.
Second, IT security is very poorly understood and rarely gets the respect it deserves. This leads to it being asked to do impossible and contradictory things. And that leads to them giving up. You replace me because I insisted on the security not being shit and you'll get an IT security team that is more afraid of angering ignorant users than it is of not doing its job. It will then PRETEND to work instead of actually do anything. All these hacks are happening at just such companies. Not ONE successful significant hack has happened at any organization with an empowered IT security department. Not fucking one.
It is people like you that made the Sony hack happen. It is people like you that made the OPM hack happen. It is little shits like you that ruin IT security and make big organizations incapable of defending themselves from teenagers in Russia giggling as they rifle through the organization's database. And you presume to judge me? You're a fucking cancer.
As to you refusing to use company devices. Any company that cares about security will call your bluff and tell you to find work elsewhere. Where I work, I have to use three types of authentication just to get to my office... debatablely four if you count human eye balls. You think they're going to let your iphone shit connect to the servers? You're adorable but no.
You are permitted to bring your own personal phones into the building and do whatever you want with them. The only risk I've been able to figure out from that is the cameras on the phones. There are actually rooms where even your personal phones aren't allowed but most of the offices aren't that level of security. Regardless... personal devices do not connect to the servers in any way.
People that need to work at home or travel are given company laptops. People that don't have memos forwarded to personal email accounts. etc.
Its a different way of thinking and I appreciate if you find it alien or onerous. However, it is secure and it does not get hacked. Anywhere by anyone... ever.
Your system is easy, requires very little skill to maintain, is very permissive to whatever users want to do, and is very popular... but it is also insecure and gets hacked constantly.
So you decide what matters. Security or angry birds. I choose security. You apparently are an angry bird champion. Congrats on that and good luck.
your example doesn't use the technology in question and it is merely water resistant... something any phone could be with a water resistant case which are fairly cheap.
Good point. I think the best application I've seen of this tech was charging medical implants. That way you don't need to have breaks in the skin to permit charging. There is a receiver pad somewhere on the body and you wear a battery belt or something to keep the internal implant batteries charged.
So that's a good application. I'd hardly call it wireless. But at least it has a legitimate purpose.
Already you know what kind of man I am? From a few posts you say? You must have super powers. A psychologist couldn't tell what kind of man I am from anything less than several interviews. And even then I'd have to answer truthfully. If I intentionally misrepresented myself then not even the experts would classify me properly. But you figured me from a couple posts you think?
You haven't a clue what sort of person I am and this is not a new technology. Its been around since Tesla at least. To compare it with the computer is idiocy.
And beyond that there are lots of inventions that turn out to be not terribly useful all the time. Your allusions to untapped potential are merely hearsay. Tell me what I'm not seeing? Suggest something. Or you're just presuming superiority based on little more than you have blind faith and I don't.
I'm sure the politicians like it... they're always fans of new taxes. As to its effectiveness... without tariffs that impose a tax on imports that generate carbon or a tax on imported power generated using carbon... the tax is at best a shell game that confuses green nitwits into thinking they accomplished something and profits the politicians by getting green nitwit votes and getting more tax revenue.
A carbon shell game is at best what you have here. its nothing to brag about.
Hydro? Are you fucking kidding me? Absolutely not. Hydro plants do NOT like being ramped up and down constantly. Maybe the new plants are different. I can't speak to that. The traditional ones those take time to hit their stride and do not like being fucked with once they're in their zone.
I have an aunt that is an engineer that works on hydro dams in California. She was telling me that they were actually doing what you suggest... they were ramping the power up and down and up and down. And it caused serious damage to many of the dams because the water pressure was flying all over the place. The pressure would shoot up and then down and then up and then down... and that puts wear on the pipes, on the turbines, on the blades... and it broke stuff. Big four ton custom made machinery... cracked.
No spares... replacements required ordering new custom parts be made by a factory and then FLOWN and then helicoptered to the dam. Where upon the fucktards that were doing what you just suggested were told in no uncertain terms to not do that again. That is assuming they kept their jobs. Which is frankly doubtful.
You're describing something that is done in a few university gardens with mixed results. Its not practical. And as to nature this or nature that... nature has a whole planet to absorb issues. I have just my own little plot of earth. I'm not losing my plants. And if that means your panties get in a really tight knot because I had to use some organic pesticide?...
If security is important to the company they'll call your bluff.
If you're working at a company where security isn't important or where they don't take it seriously... then do whatever. Write your user name, password, on to strange public bathroom walls for all I care.
As to people not being able to get work done with the network disconnected.
That's a false dichotomy. I don't have to go full blown sneakernet to secure a network. I just need to:
1. Control physical access to anything users touch such that interactions happen in ways I control. This is easily done with thin clients and terminal servers. I the clients I use have bios settings that disable the US of mass storage drives in the USB ports.
2. The operating system mirrored for all the clients will only run white listed code. If an admin hasn't personally approved a given exe by a given user/group/anyone to run the thing... it isn't running. And all programs capable of executing scripts have that functionality either limited or kneecapped. I am very good at surgically breaking software so that certain features of the software just don't work. I do that whenever a bit of software has to be used but it has problematic features that actually aren't required. Sometimes they are required and then I just find ways to control the problem.
3. The firewalls only permit access to whitelisted domains.
I could go on... the list of things done to the network is exhaustive.
Did you read what I said? Of course you didn't. Why would you do that. It wastes time when you can just go into playback mode spitting out a lot of information and arguments I already dealt with.
1. How wireless is it if you have to plug the transmitter in and then your phone for example has to be put RIGHT ON FUCKING TOP OF IT. So yeah... sure... you don't have to put a cable into your phone. But how fucking lazy are you? There is still a cable right there right next to your phone. This is about as wireless as the old infrared communications protocols that existed for cellphones for awhile. I mean... sure... wireless... but you had to put the two devices RIGHT next to each other and couldn't move them during transfers. Not exactly wifi or bluetooth is it?
2. You ONLY get that efficiency if you put the phone or whatever DIRECTLY no top of the transmitter. See how fast it charges when its only five feet away. I mean... will even charge at all or is the power loss so extreme at a range of five feet that it just doesn't even try?
So did these guys miss the boat? What boat? There was never a boat in the first place. The technology makes sense in only a very limited set of circumstances. For example, I can see using this to charge robots. The robot gets close to a charge pad and touches it to get power.... I mean... that might be better than direct copper contacts. But even that is dubious.
I think its a neato gimmick for people that want to buy a toy. I don't think it has any utility besides that.
hmmm... I can only speak to what I've heard of the US grid. And what they say is that you can't really fire a coal plant up that fast or shut it down. You have to use oil if you do that. Those are the only power plants that can shut down and ramp up again to compensate for the wind/solar problem.
The other point is saying it is predictable is not actually true unless you are being very imprecise. A coal power plant can tell you very precisely how much power it will output. Same with nuclear or oil plants. They say X KW and they tend to hit a number with a high degree of precision.
You can't get the same thing out of wind or solar. It jumps all over the place. Yes you know it will be a sunny day or there might be wind but you really don't know how much.
And that's only half the issue because it will suddenly cut out and them jump up. its very hard to regulate that system which is why renewable makes the most sense at point of use rather than at large plants feeding the power into the general grid.
That is, you should put solar panels on your roofs and use that to reduce your consumption. Then the balance can be met with nuclear and peaker plants.
that is the right way to do it. The big wind farms are not economical and do not work well with a grid system. Again, its fine if you use them to reduce use. Its even better if you have battery banks on site that even out the power. But its not a good idea for the general grid because your power output jumps all over the place.
You need to kick out X megawatts... EVERY DAY. If you need to cut back for maintenance every so often that is fine. That is what peaker plants are for. But if you're using the peaker plants all the time then the system is badly designed.
As to good prediction, the prediction you want is theoretical and thus far not implemented anywhere. You are covering the system by overproducing and matching every wind plant with coal backups. Its crazy.
You never should have gotten rid of the nuclear. That was silly. Nuclear is great.
That isn't saying that they're not building the plants though. It is saying the demand is very high but prices are being depressed... so they are getting their customers to help pay for the new power plants thus decreasing what the power companies have to pay to build the plants.
I think you need to read between the lines here. Why would their customers help them build power plants if the market was over saturated with power? They wouldn't.
If the market was flooded with power and some power company wanted to get money to build another in eastern europ, then why would the germans help pay for it?
And yet they are... that implies power is tight.
Beyond that, you saw the bit in your own citations where the Poles are saying they're building TWO nuclear power plants or at least talking about building them. That is a LOT of power they're talking about adding to the system. That implies a LOT of demand.
When you consider that most of this demand is for export it makes it clear that the western european "decarbonization" program is dependent on power imports and not actually on renewables.
Remove power imports from eastern europe and the decarbonization program in Germany would collapse.
What is more... I believe from your own citations...though I might be wrong... it says that exports of coal from the US to germany have DOUBLED.
This all implies that the decarbonization is a potemikin village. A greenwashing. A farce. The germans should not have terminated their nuclear power programs. That was silly. its just moving east. And by some of the things i was reading, this is costing german industry a lot because they're having to pay a lot more for power and whether any of that cost actually translates to a better environment is highly questionable.
Don't get me wrong... I don't really care. I'm in the US. Whether the German economy profits or suffers... the US can make money investing in Germany or selling it short. I'm just saying... if "I" were a german... I'd be very upset that people are sabotaging my country's economy and future for dubious objectives.
... so you say... but given that the politicians are more interested in the numbers looking good than whether they actually accomplished anything... that's questionable.
US coal exports to Germany have more than doubled.
Poland is massively expanding their power generation capabilities and are looking to to shift to nuclear because demand is so high.
The problem with your renewables is that they're not reliable. They need reliable back ups. And you buy those at a premium from eastern europe mostly.
Long term power contracts at set rates are much cheaper than drawing from Peaker plant contracts. And that's a lot of what is going on here.
The shift to green power is premature. We should have doubled down on nuclear and waited until we had economical power storage sufficient to store several days worth of power per generator. That would smooth the power out and negate the need for the coal and gas peakers. But people wanted it now before it was ready and so... the clusterfuck continues.
China is ultimately insular. They're not a people given to evangelism... that is the spreading of their beliefs or culture.
A great many other cultures are evangelistic. The US is the most powerful of these and is strongly evangelistic. Exactly why in the foreseeable future would Mandarin overtake English? Its not credible.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
My car has almost no electronics in it. Manual transmission. Manual locks. The breaks have some electronics in them but that's not interfaced with anything else. etc.
I'm getting ready to buy a new car and I'm going to make a point of either not having all that electronic shit in it in the first place or I'm getting it stripped out by a specialist and replaced with something else.
A big part of the reason a drone is cheaper than a plane is that it doesn't have to carry a person in it. No life support systems, no cockpit, no displays or controls in the plane. And it doesn't have to be designed to the same safety and recovery standards. Fire a missile at a drone and a lot of them don't even have counter measures. And if they are brought down there's no ejector seat etc.
When we talk about drone cars... they'll get cheaper if they don't have to carry humans or if the entire car can be simplified for computer only control.
The cars are going to be hybrid systems for the foreseeable future and those are not going to be cheaper because they'll involve aspects of both systems. Redundant systems increase costs. Period.
Can you explain the relevance of his citation then? I'd like to know why this matters in the context of my augment that Germany overstates its CO2 reductions by manipulating statistics by shifting carbon debt to eastern europe.
Or in the case of california... they do the same thing only with Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico... all of which have large coal fired power plants that feed a significant amount of that coal to Cali.
it isn't my only goal. The goal is to raise security to such a point that the system is not compromised while also permitting the system to be efficiently used by authorized persons.
This is obtainable. I believe I have obtained it. There is no legitimate task an employee needs to do with the system that they cannot do. I have disallowed all other things.
If they don't need to do something... then they can't. That is roughly the doctrine.
I work on a white listing philosophy.
So I basically start with an unplugged system in a cage. Then I list things that people must do and then enable functionality to see that those things can be done.
So if you need to use the machine then it needs to be plugged in.
I actually played with the idea of controlling power to the terminals based on whether an employee was supposed to be using them or not. But that seemed excessive. I do control power to certain offices and given machines. But I don't bother with the workstations.
IT security is not customer facing any more than the legal department is customer facing or the accounting department or HR or any other department designed to manage risk and see that things are done in the CORRECT way so that the organization doesn't get corn holed by being sloppy, lazy, or stupid.
You saying there is no such thing as perfect security is like saying there is no such thing as a company with competent accounting.
My cousin recently had to go to India to audit a company in Mumbai. Had a good time... but he said they had the sloppiest accounting he had ever seen. He basically had to redo everything and educate their senior accounting staff as to the importance of proper documentation.
That's a lot of what has happened to IT security over the years. The new thing kept coming out and the secured version of the new thing always lags a bit behind.
So IT was beaten into allowing the UNSECURE new thing to be the standard. You can't have security in that environment. Can't. When people say you can't have security or that all the security is flawed. That is what they mean and assume. They are basically saying... This crap can't be secured and you're going to use it so we can't have security.
Well... I would tell you to check your premises. We don't need to use that tech or that software or use it in the way a consumer would use it.
And if we do things from the ground up with security being held as sacrosanct, then we can secure the system so that it is not penetrated.
Spherical cows you say? I don't see the utility of such a cow. So the analogy makes no sense. There's no point to a spherical cow and thus no reason to try to have cows be spherical. The analogy is therefore of no utility. Use a more contextually relevant analogy please or do not use analogies. I find that many people do not use analogies to describe situations but rather use them simply to "reductio ad absurdum".
I'm not stupid. Don't use stupid arguments against me. It is neither interesting nor effective.
First, you're assuming that you only have the company phone. If you care about your privacy then just keep a personal phone as well.
Second, I can only speak for myself here... I don't care what you do with your company phone whenever it isn't accessing company information. We have a zillion minutes on the shared account. There was one guy that was having four hour conversations with someone that was surely personal and it didn't matter. The policy we have with it is that you can make all those calls so long as they're not international. Then we start to pay for that. And even then all we ask is that you pay for what those minutes cost the company. Which you'd have to do with a personal line anyway.
As to legal discovery or something. You're talking about a very hostile work environment which no one wants. Anyone that is so annoying that we start talking about about legal action is someone we want gone anyway. And a reason will be found. If we have to, we'll downsize their position which permits arbitrary dismissals. The culture where I work is that you're a company man/woman or you're gone. Legal action would only happen if you did something that involved damages or if you tried to sue the organization. And in that case, we could get your private cell phone provider to give us your records by court order without much more difficulty than we could poll the records from our own lines.
Look... you don't want to use the company phone for personal stuff? Fine. Get your own phone. Use it in health. But you're not connecting to company systems with that thing unless you're willing to hand it to me, install custom firmware on it, and have all its security settings slaved to security policy. No device that has not had that done to it is connecting.
First, I'm not an asshole... anymore than the legal team is an asshole if you open the company up to lawsuits... or the accounting team is an asshole if you don't document your expenses properly or misappropriate funds... or the HR department if you start calling coworkers racist names... etc. I'm not an asshole. I'm doing my job.
Second, IT security is very poorly understood and rarely gets the respect it deserves. This leads to it being asked to do impossible and contradictory things. And that leads to them giving up. You replace me because I insisted on the security not being shit and you'll get an IT security team that is more afraid of angering ignorant users than it is of not doing its job. It will then PRETEND to work instead of actually do anything. All these hacks are happening at just such companies. Not ONE successful significant hack has happened at any organization with an empowered IT security department. Not fucking one.
It is people like you that made the Sony hack happen. It is people like you that made the OPM hack happen. It is little shits like you that ruin IT security and make big organizations incapable of defending themselves from teenagers in Russia giggling as they rifle through the organization's database. And you presume to judge me? You're a fucking cancer.
As to you refusing to use company devices. Any company that cares about security will call your bluff and tell you to find work elsewhere. Where I work, I have to use three types of authentication just to get to my office... debatablely four if you count human eye balls. You think they're going to let your iphone shit connect to the servers? You're adorable but no.
You are permitted to bring your own personal phones into the building and do whatever you want with them. The only risk I've been able to figure out from that is the cameras on the phones. There are actually rooms where even your personal phones aren't allowed but most of the offices aren't that level of security. Regardless... personal devices do not connect to the servers in any way.
People that need to work at home or travel are given company laptops. People that don't have memos forwarded to personal email accounts. etc.
Its a different way of thinking and I appreciate if you find it alien or onerous. However, it is secure and it does not get hacked. Anywhere by anyone... ever.
Your system is easy, requires very little skill to maintain, is very permissive to whatever users want to do, and is very popular... but it is also insecure and gets hacked constantly.
So you decide what matters. Security or angry birds. I choose security. You apparently are an angry bird champion. Congrats on that and good luck.
your example doesn't use the technology in question and it is merely water resistant... something any phone could be with a water resistant case which are fairly cheap.
Jump in the discard pile.
Are you going to cite which country you're representing as your model or can I safely conclude that you've conceded the argument to me?
I'm using this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
derived from the flower not synthetic.
I spread a white powder all over the place and the insects all died. My plants are looking like they're saved. :)
Its supposed to be biodegradable and usable on the plants up to the day of harvest.
Good point. I think the best application I've seen of this tech was charging medical implants. That way you don't need to have breaks in the skin to permit charging. There is a receiver pad somewhere on the body and you wear a battery belt or something to keep the internal implant batteries charged.
So that's a good application. I'd hardly call it wireless. But at least it has a legitimate purpose.
waterproof cases already exist for about 20 dollars.
Regardless... no one using this tech is doing it for water proof cellphones.
If this is your best shot... we'll just leave it there.
Log in and I'll show you're a fraud. Remain an AC troll and that can merely be assumed.
Already you know what kind of man I am? From a few posts you say? You must have super powers. A psychologist couldn't tell what kind of man I am from anything less than several interviews. And even then I'd have to answer truthfully. If I intentionally misrepresented myself then not even the experts would classify me properly. But you figured me from a couple posts you think?
You haven't a clue what sort of person I am and this is not a new technology. Its been around since Tesla at least. To compare it with the computer is idiocy.
And beyond that there are lots of inventions that turn out to be not terribly useful all the time. Your allusions to untapped potential are merely hearsay. Tell me what I'm not seeing? Suggest something. Or you're just presuming superiority based on little more than you have blind faith and I don't.
Sadly, that about sums it up.
I'm sure the politicians like it... they're always fans of new taxes. As to its effectiveness... without tariffs that impose a tax on imports that generate carbon or a tax on imported power generated using carbon... the tax is at best a shell game that confuses green nitwits into thinking they accomplished something and profits the politicians by getting green nitwit votes and getting more tax revenue.
A carbon shell game is at best what you have here. its nothing to brag about.
Hydro? Are you fucking kidding me? Absolutely not. Hydro plants do NOT like being ramped up and down constantly. Maybe the new plants are different. I can't speak to that. The traditional ones those take time to hit their stride and do not like being fucked with once they're in their zone.
I have an aunt that is an engineer that works on hydro dams in California. She was telling me that they were actually doing what you suggest... they were ramping the power up and down and up and down. And it caused serious damage to many of the dams because the water pressure was flying all over the place. The pressure would shoot up and then down and then up and then down... and that puts wear on the pipes, on the turbines, on the blades... and it broke stuff. Big four ton custom made machinery... cracked.
No spares... replacements required ordering new custom parts be made by a factory and then FLOWN and then helicoptered to the dam. Where upon the fucktards that were doing what you just suggested were told in no uncertain terms to not do that again. That is assuming they kept their jobs. Which is frankly doubtful.
You're describing something that is done in a few university gardens with mixed results. Its not practical. And as to nature this or nature that... nature has a whole planet to absorb issues. I have just my own little plot of earth. I'm not losing my plants. And if that means your panties get in a really tight knot because I had to use some organic pesticide?...
I think I'll get over it. ;-)
If security is important to the company they'll call your bluff.
If you're working at a company where security isn't important or where they don't take it seriously... then do whatever. Write your user name, password, on to strange public bathroom walls for all I care.
As to people not being able to get work done with the network disconnected.
That's a false dichotomy. I don't have to go full blown sneakernet to secure a network. I just need to:
1. Control physical access to anything users touch such that interactions happen in ways I control. This is easily done with thin clients and terminal servers. I the clients I use have bios settings that disable the US of mass storage drives in the USB ports.
2. The operating system mirrored for all the clients will only run white listed code. If an admin hasn't personally approved a given exe by a given user/group/anyone to run the thing... it isn't running. And all programs capable of executing scripts have that functionality either limited or kneecapped. I am very good at surgically breaking software so that certain features of the software just don't work. I do that whenever a bit of software has to be used but it has problematic features that actually aren't required. Sometimes they are required and then I just find ways to control the problem.
3. The firewalls only permit access to whitelisted domains.
I could go on... the list of things done to the network is exhaustive.
Nice try... I didn't say it was a convenience for the company or for the user to do things for the company.
Rather, I'd like you to tell me something you need your device for that you couldn't do on a company blackberry?
Hit me with your best shot. Why do you need a an iphone6 to answer an email or send a text? I'd love to hear it.
Did you read what I said? Of course you didn't. Why would you do that. It wastes time when you can just go into playback mode spitting out a lot of information and arguments I already dealt with.
1. How wireless is it if you have to plug the transmitter in and then your phone for example has to be put RIGHT ON FUCKING TOP OF IT. So yeah... sure... you don't have to put a cable into your phone. But how fucking lazy are you? There is still a cable right there right next to your phone. This is about as wireless as the old infrared communications protocols that existed for cellphones for awhile. I mean... sure... wireless... but you had to put the two devices RIGHT next to each other and couldn't move them during transfers. Not exactly wifi or bluetooth is it?
2. You ONLY get that efficiency if you put the phone or whatever DIRECTLY no top of the transmitter. See how fast it charges when its only five feet away. I mean... will even charge at all or is the power loss so extreme at a range of five feet that it just doesn't even try?
So did these guys miss the boat? What boat? There was never a boat in the first place. The technology makes sense in only a very limited set of circumstances. For example, I can see using this to charge robots. The robot gets close to a charge pad and touches it to get power.... I mean... that might be better than direct copper contacts. But even that is dubious.
I think its a neato gimmick for people that want to buy a toy. I don't think it has any utility besides that.
hmmm... I can only speak to what I've heard of the US grid. And what they say is that you can't really fire a coal plant up that fast or shut it down. You have to use oil if you do that. Those are the only power plants that can shut down and ramp up again to compensate for the wind/solar problem.
The other point is saying it is predictable is not actually true unless you are being very imprecise. A coal power plant can tell you very precisely how much power it will output. Same with nuclear or oil plants. They say X KW and they tend to hit a number with a high degree of precision.
You can't get the same thing out of wind or solar. It jumps all over the place. Yes you know it will be a sunny day or there might be wind but you really don't know how much.
And that's only half the issue because it will suddenly cut out and them jump up. its very hard to regulate that system which is why renewable makes the most sense at point of use rather than at large plants feeding the power into the general grid.
That is, you should put solar panels on your roofs and use that to reduce your consumption. Then the balance can be met with nuclear and peaker plants.
that is the right way to do it. The big wind farms are not economical and do not work well with a grid system. Again, its fine if you use them to reduce use. Its even better if you have battery banks on site that even out the power. But its not a good idea for the general grid because your power output jumps all over the place.
You need to kick out X megawatts... EVERY DAY. If you need to cut back for maintenance every so often that is fine. That is what peaker plants are for. But if you're using the peaker plants all the time then the system is badly designed.
As to good prediction, the prediction you want is theoretical and thus far not implemented anywhere. You are covering the system by overproducing and matching every wind plant with coal backups. Its crazy.
You never should have gotten rid of the nuclear. That was silly. Nuclear is great.
That isn't saying that they're not building the plants though. It is saying the demand is very high but prices are being depressed... so they are getting their customers to help pay for the new power plants thus decreasing what the power companies have to pay to build the plants.
I think you need to read between the lines here. Why would their customers help them build power plants if the market was over saturated with power? They wouldn't.
If the market was flooded with power and some power company wanted to get money to build another in eastern europ, then why would the germans help pay for it?
And yet they are... that implies power is tight.
Beyond that, you saw the bit in your own citations where the Poles are saying they're building TWO nuclear power plants or at least talking about building them. That is a LOT of power they're talking about adding to the system. That implies a LOT of demand.
When you consider that most of this demand is for export it makes it clear that the western european "decarbonization" program is dependent on power imports and not actually on renewables.
Remove power imports from eastern europe and the decarbonization program in Germany would collapse.
What is more... I believe from your own citations.. .though I might be wrong... it says that exports of coal from the US to germany have DOUBLED.
This all implies that the decarbonization is a potemikin village. A greenwashing. A farce. The germans should not have terminated their nuclear power programs. That was silly. its just moving east. And by some of the things i was reading, this is costing german industry a lot because they're having to pay a lot more for power and whether any of that cost actually translates to a better environment is highly questionable.
Don't get me wrong... I don't really care. I'm in the US. Whether the German economy profits or suffers... the US can make money investing in Germany or selling it short. I'm just saying... if "I" were a german... I'd be very upset that people are sabotaging my country's economy and future for dubious objectives.
Login and make your point or remain an ignorable AC troll. ;)
... so you say... but given that the politicians are more interested in the numbers looking good than whether they actually accomplished anything... that's questionable.
US coal exports to Germany have more than doubled.
Poland is massively expanding their power generation capabilities and are looking to to shift to nuclear because demand is so high.
The problem with your renewables is that they're not reliable. They need reliable back ups. And you buy those at a premium from eastern europe mostly.
Long term power contracts at set rates are much cheaper than drawing from Peaker plant contracts. And that's a lot of what is going on here.
The shift to green power is premature. We should have doubled down on nuclear and waited until we had economical power storage sufficient to store several days worth of power per generator. That would smooth the power out and negate the need for the coal and gas peakers. But people wanted it now before it was ready and so... the clusterfuck continues.
We will have to agree to disagree there.
China is ultimately insular. They're not a people given to evangelism... that is the spreading of their beliefs or culture.
A great many other cultures are evangelistic. The US is the most powerful of these and is strongly evangelistic. Exactly why in the foreseeable future would Mandarin overtake English? Its not credible.