"You can trust us. We're the Government and we're just here to help you."
Sarcasm that's true, even in socialist states that are worse than the UK.
"Hello Comrade... I'm with the KGB and I'm here to collect what I need from you... " or "Mr. Chow, I'm Mr. Ping, I'm from the regional office and I'm here to take what you have for the good of the country and tell you must move...." Or... "Mr Moon, Dear Leader demands you hand over that food for his appetizer tray even though you will starve. If you don't smile about it, you will be marched in front of the AA battery for target practice."
I never claimed to be an expert here, in fact quite the opposite. But you seem to be all upset, as if I've hit a nerve.
I'm looking at the theory here and there are some common aspects between the physics of CT and spectroscopy that just *might* be possible to leverage using the right detectors. Actually, it looks pretty likely to me as the physical layouts of the two techniques are *very* similar, so similar that I'd be willing to bet that you could generate a CT image using spectroscopy hardware pretty easily in the non-medical world. Bu t hey, I'm just some guy with a EE degree who programs for a living, so my physics and engineering training doesn't make me an expert in CT or Spectroscopy using X-Rays.
As for your perspective, I really don't know if you are just upset because I'm just naïve about this or because you didn't think about it first. However, I do know you are not very forthcoming with information to support your claims and you are rude about it as well. Rudeness isn't a good way to deal with naiveté education is and you don't seem to be willing/able to educate anybody. So chances are you know a little, but not enough to be the expert you claim. I could be wrong, but either way, there is nothing for me to learn from you discussing this further, unless you alter your approach.
What stops them from doing away with the rotating bits?
I was thinking that you could have a ring of detectors that had sufficient resolution and then have a ring of scanning X-Ray sources that didn't move, but could scan an X-Ray beam though the object and to the detectors. No moving parts = easier to maintain and as a bonus you get to get your slices faster AND can do some additional calculations and get some interesting chemical information too.
However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy
A CAT scan is not x-ray spectroscopy. It is a 3-D x-ray, based on density and not chemistry.
I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware
Unlikely.
Ah, but the equipment configuration of a CT machine *could* be used in the same way as am x-ray spectroscopy setup, especially if you are removing the majority of the moving parts of a CT machine by putting a ring of detectors around the object to be observed and then you could detect the diffractions and reflections from a point source of X-Rays. My guess (and that's all) is they've done this, or think they can do it with the equipment they have with more software and processing. Remember, what makes a CT generate images is the post processing of the collected data to calculate the X-Ray blocking of the material and a specific point, by passing a beam of X-Rays though the object as the detector and source go around it.
You can basically detect the chemical makeup of the fluids using X-Rays and CT techniques if you have the proper source and detector setups. At $300K for each machine, I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware, just not implemented and/or validated yet in the software.
Actually, metal IS a problem for a traditional medical CT machine which works with a point source and only a couple of point targets going round and round as the thing being imaged slowly moves though the scanner. Metal creates scattered X-Rays and shadows that the CT software doesn't know how to deal with in the medical world. I've seen these effects in CT's of my daughter's arm where they had to install metal plates after a car accident.
HOWEVER.... This is *also* a thing you can leverage if you want to and have multiple detectors to capture the scattered X-Rays. Then you can use the scattered information to better classify the materials and deal with metal, plastics and other X-Ray scattering and blocking materials. There is lots of information to be had doing that.
Problem is, I'm drowning in data, but what I really need is information from all that data.
Sure, you could collect it, and store it, and even possibly get a way to retrieve it quick enough to do comparisons, but what can you really tell from it? That they packed their laptop on top last time or are bringing home TWO bottles of water when they left with one? Maybe you could gig them for stealing shampoo from the hotel? Or, GASP, their carry on is LARGER on the way home than when the left and it's loaded up with stuff from the duty free store...
IF somebody can cook up some possible workable way to take the pile of data and get useful information out of it, only then is it a risk, and it's only a risk when they have the means, ability and resources to actually do it. I'm not worried about the TSA having the ability. They cannot find 95% of the stuff they are supposed to find now..
X-Rays can give you a lot more information about a material than you might think looking at a B&W picture of your broken arm.
In Fact, you can tell a LOT about the material using an X-Ray and lots of detectors looking at how they are scattered going though an object, including details about the molecular structure and clues about the chemistry of the material. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to assume that CT techniques could be used to tell the difference between the baby formula, bottle of water, shampoo, shaving cream and explosives.
I thought the BS about those was because the security types were afraid of explosives? How are CT scans going to mitigate that?
You are funny, acting like the shape is the only information you get from an X-ray....
You do understand that density of the material along with some very interesting information about the structure at a molecular level is obtained with X-Rays. Interesting enough to make a determination about it's chemical composition and tell explosives apart from shampoo, shaving cream and mouthwash. All this without looking at the shape...
If it costs more to mine the BitCoin then mining will stop until the price of BitCoin rises. Once BitCoin rises to a certain level it will start mining again. Free market at work. In fact, it might be a good time to buy BitCoin now, since it price will rise.
The problem here is that at some tipping point, lack of mining operations will increase transaction times which will make BitCoin unattractive because of it lacks liquidity, taking too long to verify transactions. This could cause it's value to plummet further and mining operators to flee to more profitable work. Transaction times for BitCoin have been pretty long of late, making active investment in BitCoin *really* difficult to do quickly. Waiting an hour to see if your trade is confirmed, or paying extra fees makes it all that harder to turn profits and discourages investors.
So, this problem may just spell the end of BitCoin should we reach some tipping point...
I don't think we are at that point yet, but I'm also not sure your flashing the buy signal is advised either. Admittedly, I've never been a fan of BitCoin specifically (or crypto in general); I think it's way too volatile to make it into an "investment", BUT if you want to gamble some cash, BitCoin might be better odds than a Vegas craps table.
How about porting Media Center in a way that allows protected content to Windows 10 and improving it by letting Xbox-One work as a viewer like the 360 can?
Why?
Because, that's about the ONLY reason I keep running windows at home because it's the only way I can record and view protected content with my cable card tuner.
Shall we decree what we call Coke and Pepsi? Is it "pop", "cola", "soda", "soda pop", "soft drink", or just plain "coke"? My guess is government regulations will mandate it be labeled as "Carbonated water with flavoring".
So, can I have a "Carbonated water with cola flavoring from the Coke Classic recipe with rum" for me and a "cow sourced dairy product that has been reduced to 2% dairy fat, homogenized, pasteurized and has had sweetened chocolate flavoring added" for the kid here.
Seriously, this is stupid... Just let me order my "Rum and Coke" and a "Chocolate milk" please.
My point was that Kim is the one deciding how this plays out. Trump has put his position on the table, complete verified disarmament before sanctions get lifted, Kim can either accept it or the sanctions remain in place.
Trump get's credit for negotiating the deal, but Kim is the one making the choices at this point.
Obviously the North Koreans are following their old warn path in their tactics. Talk, give up a little bit of something, then backtrack claiming some insult once they get what they want. They play the North and South Korean press, holding out that olive branch of peace, only to toss it into the fire once the heat is off. They are just trying to figure out how much they can get away with and how much power Trump is ready and able to apply. I think they are going to regret calling Trump's bluff if and when they do.
The voting management systems are the machines that actually count the votes!
Where would you like to put your hack? Somehow on the 1000+ individual voting machines in a county that folks walk up to? or the one ring (machine) that rules them all that actually counts the votes?
And it could be something fairly small....
On each race, for every vote for party x, adjust 5% of votes on party x down by one and party y up by one. Enough that a landslide would still ring true, but a typical 5-10% spread election would be shifted without notice... could even add logic that if the actual election is really close (under say 3%) - make no adjustment! That way there is no scrutiny in the system.
You are suggesting these systems where hacked via PCAnywhere that basically *requires* local access to initiate the connection. Given your scenario is hypothetical and obvious requires more than just some on line script kitty level hacking to compromise the system, but includes the requirement of having unauthorized administrative and physical access to the systems in question, I think you have overlooked some much bigger security issues.
Then there is the AC posting calling someone a moron angle. Got to love the irony of that... LOL
Sure, sure, lots of things are POSSIBLE... A magnetic storm and cosmic rays could alter the vote count too, but without evidence that it actually happened you cannot somehow claim that it did. So let's dispense with the hypothetical musings and concern ourselves with reality and what we can prove. There is no reason to think the vote counts where messed with after they where cast.... (Although there IS evidence that illegal votes where cast and counted... Like by dead people via mail in ballots and such).
Out going to where? Norton's server? NAT affords you some security here by limiting firewall connections to OUTBOUND only, outside traffic cannot initiate a connection unless you have port forwarding turned on, in this case for PCAnywhere.
You see, the ISSUE here is that you can get out, but ONLY when somebody initiates the connection from the inside. Just having PCAnywhere on your system does NOT make it immediately exploitable. PCAnywhere does not just broadcast it's existence and getting IN though a NAT connection is not possible without some other issue in play.
So behind a NAT, this is pretty much a non-issue, unless you have some other security problem such as a compromised router or another server that has some compromise that allows remote access. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying that the risks of that happening are significantly less given that nobody is going to put such systems on the internet directly, unless they are idiots. In which case, PCAnywhere is the least of your worries.
Then you suggest that unauthorized physical access *might* be an issue? Again, IF that's the case, PCAnywhere is the very least of your worries because you are an idiot about security in the first place....
Then there is the whole, It wasn't part of the standard package and only installed on a handful of systems to enable remote support (likely for those who paid extra for this level of support).
Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal. Right now the North Koreans are running around trying to figure out exactly how much of their nuclear program they can hide and are busy finding and filling holes with paperwork and equipment. This will take awhile, so I don't expect any "progress" with NK until this is done and the radiation in certain areas has died down.
The proof will be that Trump doesn't relax sanctions on NK until the disarmament has been independently verified, which means North Korea will need to allow unfettered onsite inspections. My guess is Kim is just stalling, hoping that the appearance of peace and the press swirling around Trump makes it possible to get sanctions removed on the mere promise from Kim. I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.
They put PCAnywhere on the MANAGEMENT systems on a few customer's systems. This was NOT on voting machines.
Folks do need to realize that this risk pretty much requires internet access and requires firewall access rules that allow it. This is not some huge risk and is easily mitigated by your standard network firewall configuration. Your home router would be sufficient to prevent unauthorized access using PCAnywhere. Big woop.
So why did the story change? Because, it wasn't part of the normal systems sold back in 2000-2006 and somebody remembered that in a few cases PCAnywhere was used to provide support for some selected customers and pointed that out to the people making these statements. Then, presented with evidence contrary to their original statement, they tell the truth and modify their statements.
Where this is something that needs to be fixed and PCAnywhere removed from the systems in question, there is very little real risk.
Airlines could pressure the FAA to change how PIC hours are calculated to make it a bit easier, and basically promote some of the current stock of low hours pilots immediately.
Yea, and the FAA will tell them to go pound sand. This was an NTSB recommendation from an accident report that the FAA made into a regulation.
One can argue that this regulation was overreach and went too far, but it doesn't seem right to roll back to 250 hours where it used to be.
Personally, the issue is Airlines have been cutting costs and managing to quarter profit numbers and not thinking strategically about how all this expansion and low fares would play out in the long run. The smart money would be grooming young pilots by paying for their training and locking them into flying for you. I think a smart investment would be pouring money into flight schools and cargo flying businesses to get pilots hours in the air, even if the businesses lost money. You could fly seafood from the coasts inland and specialty produce back, establish charter and sight seeing services around tourist areas, anything that offsets the costs, even if it loses money, but gives learning pilots jobs and hours.
It's Intel's fault you know.. That I9 chip dissipates too much heat for the heat sink and fan.
(sarc off)
Seriously, I think that this is a symptom of Intel's recent FAB issues. Where they not trying to move to a smaller process and having issues getting their yield up high enough to turn a profit? I'm guessing that Apple designed for the expected power/performance and got disappointed. Then the marketing decision was made to release the I9 based systems regardless of the heat buildup performance roll back.
But in reality, who's using their MacBook to render stuff? Wrong tool for that job.
Slashdot Mirror
"Well I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say that a spy agency is spying"...
"The information you collected is here sir!"
"Thank You."
"Now round up the usual suspects! I've got some interrogations to do."
"You can trust us. We're the Government and we're just here to help you."
Sarcasm that's true, even in socialist states that are worse than the UK.
"Hello Comrade... I'm with the KGB and I'm here to collect what I need from you... " or "Mr. Chow, I'm Mr. Ping, I'm from the regional office and I'm here to take what you have for the good of the country and tell you must move...." Or... "Mr Moon, Dear Leader demands you hand over that food for his appetizer tray even though you will starve. If you don't smile about it, you will be marched in front of the AA battery for target practice."
Considering how many CCTVs are in London, it's a wonder there isn't an Orwellian book based on the UK.
There is, it was written by George Orwell... "1984" is the title..
Oh wait, you where making sort of a joke, right?
I never claimed to be an expert here, in fact quite the opposite. But you seem to be all upset, as if I've hit a nerve.
I'm looking at the theory here and there are some common aspects between the physics of CT and spectroscopy that just *might* be possible to leverage using the right detectors. Actually, it looks pretty likely to me as the physical layouts of the two techniques are *very* similar, so similar that I'd be willing to bet that you could generate a CT image using spectroscopy hardware pretty easily in the non-medical world. Bu t hey, I'm just some guy with a EE degree who programs for a living, so my physics and engineering training doesn't make me an expert in CT or Spectroscopy using X-Rays.
As for your perspective, I really don't know if you are just upset because I'm just naïve about this or because you didn't think about it first. However, I do know you are not very forthcoming with information to support your claims and you are rude about it as well. Rudeness isn't a good way to deal with naiveté education is and you don't seem to be willing/able to educate anybody. So chances are you know a little, but not enough to be the expert you claim. I could be wrong, but either way, there is nothing for me to learn from you discussing this further, unless you alter your approach.
So I have a question..
What stops them from doing away with the rotating bits?
I was thinking that you could have a ring of detectors that had sufficient resolution and then have a ring of scanning X-Ray sources that didn't move, but could scan an X-Ray beam though the object and to the detectors. No moving parts = easier to maintain and as a bonus you get to get your slices faster AND can do some additional calculations and get some interesting chemical information too.
However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy
A CAT scan is not x-ray spectroscopy. It is a 3-D x-ray, based on density and not chemistry.
I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware
Unlikely.
Ah, but the equipment configuration of a CT machine *could* be used in the same way as am x-ray spectroscopy setup, especially if you are removing the majority of the moving parts of a CT machine by putting a ring of detectors around the object to be observed and then you could detect the diffractions and reflections from a point source of X-Rays. My guess (and that's all) is they've done this, or think they can do it with the equipment they have with more software and processing. Remember, what makes a CT generate images is the post processing of the collected data to calculate the X-Ray blocking of the material and a specific point, by passing a beam of X-Rays though the object as the detector and source go around it.
Yep, I understand, which is why we have the crazy limits on amounts of fluids and containers you can bring.
However, the components to make an explosive may be detectable using x-ray spectroscopy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can basically detect the chemical makeup of the fluids using X-Rays and CT techniques if you have the proper source and detector setups. At $300K for each machine, I'm guessing they have the capability to do this in the hardware, just not implemented and/or validated yet in the software.
What about the TSA is revolutionary? They are a government agency and they provide neither transportation nor any real security...
Actually, metal IS a problem for a traditional medical CT machine which works with a point source and only a couple of point targets going round and round as the thing being imaged slowly moves though the scanner. Metal creates scattered X-Rays and shadows that the CT software doesn't know how to deal with in the medical world. I've seen these effects in CT's of my daughter's arm where they had to install metal plates after a car accident.
HOWEVER.... This is *also* a thing you can leverage if you want to and have multiple detectors to capture the scattered X-Rays. Then you can use the scattered information to better classify the materials and deal with metal, plastics and other X-Ray scattering and blocking materials. There is lots of information to be had doing that.
Problem is, I'm drowning in data, but what I really need is information from all that data.
Sure, you could collect it, and store it, and even possibly get a way to retrieve it quick enough to do comparisons, but what can you really tell from it? That they packed their laptop on top last time or are bringing home TWO bottles of water when they left with one? Maybe you could gig them for stealing shampoo from the hotel? Or, GASP, their carry on is LARGER on the way home than when the left and it's loaded up with stuff from the duty free store...
IF somebody can cook up some possible workable way to take the pile of data and get useful information out of it, only then is it a risk, and it's only a risk when they have the means, ability and resources to actually do it. I'm not worried about the TSA having the ability. They cannot find 95% of the stuff they are supposed to find now..
Actually, I think they eventually will.
X-Rays can give you a lot more information about a material than you might think looking at a B&W picture of your broken arm.
In Fact, you can tell a LOT about the material using an X-Ray and lots of detectors looking at how they are scattered going though an object, including details about the molecular structure and clues about the chemistry of the material. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to assume that CT techniques could be used to tell the difference between the baby formula, bottle of water, shampoo, shaving cream and explosives.
I thought the BS about those was because the security types were afraid of explosives? How are CT scans going to mitigate that?
You are funny, acting like the shape is the only information you get from an X-ray....
You do understand that density of the material along with some very interesting information about the structure at a molecular level is obtained with X-Rays. Interesting enough to make a determination about it's chemical composition and tell explosives apart from shampoo, shaving cream and mouthwash. All this without looking at the shape...
If it costs more to mine the BitCoin then mining will stop until the price of BitCoin rises. Once BitCoin rises to a certain level it will start mining again. Free market at work. In fact, it might be a good time to buy BitCoin now, since it price will rise.
The problem here is that at some tipping point, lack of mining operations will increase transaction times which will make BitCoin unattractive because of it lacks liquidity, taking too long to verify transactions. This could cause it's value to plummet further and mining operators to flee to more profitable work. Transaction times for BitCoin have been pretty long of late, making active investment in BitCoin *really* difficult to do quickly. Waiting an hour to see if your trade is confirmed, or paying extra fees makes it all that harder to turn profits and discourages investors.
So, this problem may just spell the end of BitCoin should we reach some tipping point...
I don't think we are at that point yet, but I'm also not sure your flashing the buy signal is advised either. Admittedly, I've never been a fan of BitCoin specifically (or crypto in general); I think it's way too volatile to make it into an "investment", BUT if you want to gamble some cash, BitCoin might be better odds than a Vegas craps table.
How about porting Media Center in a way that allows protected content to Windows 10 and improving it by letting Xbox-One work as a viewer like the 360 can?
Why?
Because, that's about the ONLY reason I keep running windows at home because it's the only way I can record and view protected content with my cable card tuner.
Thanks...
Shall we decree what we call Coke and Pepsi? Is it "pop", "cola", "soda", "soda pop", "soft drink", or just plain "coke"? My guess is government regulations will mandate it be labeled as "Carbonated water with flavoring".
So, can I have a "Carbonated water with cola flavoring from the Coke Classic recipe with rum" for me and a "cow sourced dairy product that has been reduced to 2% dairy fat, homogenized, pasteurized and has had sweetened chocolate flavoring added" for the kid here.
Seriously, this is stupid... Just let me order my "Rum and Coke" and a "Chocolate milk" please.
That's utterly impossible you know...
My point was that Kim is the one deciding how this plays out. Trump has put his position on the table, complete verified disarmament before sanctions get lifted, Kim can either accept it or the sanctions remain in place.
Trump get's credit for negotiating the deal, but Kim is the one making the choices at this point.
Obviously the North Koreans are following their old warn path in their tactics. Talk, give up a little bit of something, then backtrack claiming some insult once they get what they want. They play the North and South Korean press, holding out that olive branch of peace, only to toss it into the fire once the heat is off. They are just trying to figure out how much they can get away with and how much power Trump is ready and able to apply. I think they are going to regret calling Trump's bluff if and when they do.
You're an ID-10-T and a moron.
The voting management systems are the machines that actually count the votes!
Where would you like to put your hack? Somehow on the 1000+ individual voting machines in a county that folks walk up to? or the one ring (machine) that rules them all that actually counts the votes?
And it could be something fairly small.... On each race, for every vote for party x, adjust 5% of votes on party x down by one and party y up by one. Enough that a landslide would still ring true, but a typical 5-10% spread election would be shifted without notice... could even add logic that if the actual election is really close (under say 3%) - make no adjustment! That way there is no scrutiny in the system.
You are suggesting these systems where hacked via PCAnywhere that basically *requires* local access to initiate the connection. Given your scenario is hypothetical and obvious requires more than just some on line script kitty level hacking to compromise the system, but includes the requirement of having unauthorized administrative and physical access to the systems in question, I think you have overlooked some much bigger security issues.
Then there is the AC posting calling someone a moron angle. Got to love the irony of that... LOL
Sure, sure, lots of things are POSSIBLE... A magnetic storm and cosmic rays could alter the vote count too, but without evidence that it actually happened you cannot somehow claim that it did. So let's dispense with the hypothetical musings and concern ourselves with reality and what we can prove. There is no reason to think the vote counts where messed with after they where cast.... (Although there IS evidence that illegal votes where cast and counted... Like by dead people via mail in ballots and such).
Out going to where? Norton's server? NAT affords you some security here by limiting firewall connections to OUTBOUND only, outside traffic cannot initiate a connection unless you have port forwarding turned on, in this case for PCAnywhere.
You see, the ISSUE here is that you can get out, but ONLY when somebody initiates the connection from the inside. Just having PCAnywhere on your system does NOT make it immediately exploitable. PCAnywhere does not just broadcast it's existence and getting IN though a NAT connection is not possible without some other issue in play.
So behind a NAT, this is pretty much a non-issue, unless you have some other security problem such as a compromised router or another server that has some compromise that allows remote access. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I am saying that the risks of that happening are significantly less given that nobody is going to put such systems on the internet directly, unless they are idiots. In which case, PCAnywhere is the least of your worries.
Then you suggest that unauthorized physical access *might* be an issue? Again, IF that's the case, PCAnywhere is the very least of your worries because you are an idiot about security in the first place....
Then there is the whole, It wasn't part of the standard package and only installed on a handful of systems to enable remote support (likely for those who paid extra for this level of support).
Aliens did it.
Howard the Duck took care of the quack up.. That's what...
.at least Trump is solving the Korea was problem
Well, to be fair, the solution is up to Kim, not Trump, though Trump may get the credit for brokering the deal. Right now the North Koreans are running around trying to figure out exactly how much of their nuclear program they can hide and are busy finding and filling holes with paperwork and equipment. This will take awhile, so I don't expect any "progress" with NK until this is done and the radiation in certain areas has died down.
The proof will be that Trump doesn't relax sanctions on NK until the disarmament has been independently verified, which means North Korea will need to allow unfettered onsite inspections. My guess is Kim is just stalling, hoping that the appearance of peace and the press swirling around Trump makes it possible to get sanctions removed on the mere promise from Kim. I think Kim is mistaken, but I guess I can see why he's dragging his feet at this point, given the political landscape in the USA and the press reporting on it.
They put PCAnywhere on the MANAGEMENT systems on a few customer's systems. This was NOT on voting machines.
Folks do need to realize that this risk pretty much requires internet access and requires firewall access rules that allow it. This is not some huge risk and is easily mitigated by your standard network firewall configuration. Your home router would be sufficient to prevent unauthorized access using PCAnywhere. Big woop.
So why did the story change? Because, it wasn't part of the normal systems sold back in 2000-2006 and somebody remembered that in a few cases PCAnywhere was used to provide support for some selected customers and pointed that out to the people making these statements. Then, presented with evidence contrary to their original statement, they tell the truth and modify their statements.
Where this is something that needs to be fixed and PCAnywhere removed from the systems in question, there is very little real risk.
Airlines could pressure the FAA to change how PIC hours are calculated to make it a bit easier, and basically promote some of the current stock of low hours pilots immediately.
Yea, and the FAA will tell them to go pound sand. This was an NTSB recommendation from an accident report that the FAA made into a regulation.
One can argue that this regulation was overreach and went too far, but it doesn't seem right to roll back to 250 hours where it used to be.
Personally, the issue is Airlines have been cutting costs and managing to quarter profit numbers and not thinking strategically about how all this expansion and low fares would play out in the long run. The smart money would be grooming young pilots by paying for their training and locking them into flying for you. I think a smart investment would be pouring money into flight schools and cargo flying businesses to get pilots hours in the air, even if the businesses lost money. You could fly seafood from the coasts inland and specialty produce back, establish charter and sight seeing services around tourist areas, anything that offsets the costs, even if it loses money, but gives learning pilots jobs and hours.
It's Intel's fault you know.. That I9 chip dissipates too much heat for the heat sink and fan.
(sarc off)
Seriously, I think that this is a symptom of Intel's recent FAB issues. Where they not trying to move to a smaller process and having issues getting their yield up high enough to turn a profit? I'm guessing that Apple designed for the expected power/performance and got disappointed. Then the marketing decision was made to release the I9 based systems regardless of the heat buildup performance roll back.
But in reality, who's using their MacBook to render stuff? Wrong tool for that job.