This is going to mean a decrease in standards of living, for just about everyone. We might as well get used to the idea.
Get used to the idea? Some people even dream of it, or more precisely of forcing it upon us, because they believe this would make the world a better place.
It is the rate of change to our atmosphere, compared with geologic time scales, that is so alarming.
Rate of change? Time scales? Try 24h, clear sky, perhaps in a desert. Or 12 months, continental climate, say: Moscow, if you prefer averages. That's dramatic.
If there was any strong scientific support against global warming China would have brought it up.
China doesn't need scientific support. China has nuclear bombs and a pretty large number of potential soldiers. These are the basis of international politics, not scientific support. Welcome to reality.
In the terminology of the scientific method so worshipped by those who tout the "consensus" on "global warming", these models are unverifiable.
Much more important from a scientific point of view is whether they are falsifiable. A theory would be useless if it could explain any observation together with its opposite. Therefore for any scientific theory there must be kinds of evidence that, if found, would contradict the theory and call for extension, modification or dismissal of the theory.
For climate models that are wrong in their predictions of the future, one just needs to sit and wait for such evidence.
Do I think that if I bite a cyanide capsule then I will die? Well, I haven't tried it so I guess I don't know for certain.
Do you think that if you instantiate a global system to control climate, be it political, technical or something else, will make the world a better place? Well, you haven't tried so you don't know for sure. Not doing it might be the better option here, too.
Depends on what was done about it, but I can't help thinking "better safe than sorry."
Unfortunately you could justify just about anything this way: claim that you know what will be safe in the long run (hint: act as if you could predict the future), and win followers that prefer being safe to being sorry. In reality, it is far more likely that someone will be sorry 100 years from now not matter what we do, and we do not know today who this will be and why. Any decision you make today may contribute to any kind of future outcome. Would you like to be one of those responsible for the World War of 2083 (and the nuclear winter to follow), the root cause of which will be an international body of climate control getting more and more powerful and oppressive? No? So please tell me how to make decisions on a global scale today that prevent this future catastrophe from happening.
Don't get me wrong. There are things that we can predict that far into the future. However, the average happines of mankind is no such thing.
... competent leaders of the world, such as the Bush Administration, would actually choose to use all the controls that well-meaning individuals and organizations try to establish in the name of holy climate?
At what point do you stop funding the scientists investigating that the Earth is flat?
If you believe in the theory that the source of funding has an impact on the results: never. Otherwise you would risk losing control to the evil powers of the dark side.
Suppose some guy comes up to you with a proposal to mine gold based on a new process for leaching it from rocks other companies are ignoring. He wants you to invest money in his company but when you consult experts in chemistry, mining and geology they all tell you he is a complete quack and his idea is completely bogus. Would you invest?
I for one would. I would invest an amount that won't hurt too badly if lost. This way I could be right no matter what happens. If he fails, my decision was right to limit my investment and thus my loss. If he happens to succeed, however unlikely it may be, I get rich.
all parents or sensible person which can simply then block all.xxx domain
What does all.xxx domain mean? Does it includy any IP address that any.xxx name points to? If so, one could easily set up malicious DNS records under some.xxx domain to block access of children to any site. If not, porn could be accessed by any child using just the IP address rather than the fully qualified domain name.
nobody can anymore talk about being "accidentally" there
The typical accident is a piece of malicious software on your PC, whic takes control out of your hands.
The climate change scientists *might* be wrong. But I don't want to take the risk.
Whereas you happily accept the risk of founding a new religion -- which is what we'll get if they are wrong yet listened to and allowed to take over the world -- and all the dead bodies a religion might produce during its lifetime. This is just sick.
If you don't think a window of opportunity of several minutes is preferable to a nearly unlimited window of opportunity, you've either got a severe ideological bias towards the nonexistent utopian solution, or you're a broken robot incapable of tears.
What I really think is that the length of this window of opportunity does not matter at all. There are reports that universal phishing kits exist already, making it really simple for anyone not only to create a phishing site but also to mount a man-in-the-middle attack. This makes coordinating with your money laundering agent the most difficult and time-consuming part of the entire attack.
Furthermore I think that those solutions are superior that give the user better control over transactions carried out on his or her behalf. SecureID fails to achieve that. It just makes authentication slightly stronger where identity never was the primary issue.
A nice part of such schemes is that (properly implemented), they are highly resistant to a number of forms of attack including sniffers and man-in-the-middle attacks.
Unless we discover that ordinary people are unable to participate in such schemes, thus needing a computer to help them, which consequently becomes part of any sensible definition of middle.
It's what client-side certificates were for in the first place, but the idea seems to been forgotten.
I'd hate to the be the first organization trying to exercise the client-side certificate code...
Swiss Migros Bank uses client-side certificates to authenticate customers. Certificates are handed out on smart cards branded M-Card smart. They don't force certificates upon their customers, though; other means of authentication are supported as well.
Unfortunately their Web site seems to be available only in French, German and Italian.
RSA SecurID is an excellent "what you have". It displays a number that changes every minute, so there's no need for a special interface. Your server has the seeds, so it can figure out what number's being displayed on a given SecurID at any given moment in time.
Unfortunately the server is unable to tell the difference between a person having the SecurID token and one that just happens to have a valid code as the result of a phishing attack. Note that typically several codes are accepted by the server at any given time. Any individual code needs to be considered valid for more than a minute due to clock skew. So if one manages to obtain a valid code from the legitimate owner of the token one has several minutes at least to abuse it.
You might want to read this short article: Musings of an "Old-School" Programmer by Stephen B. Jenkins. I just found it in the May issue of Communications of the ACM. He describes how he works without an IDE and whay he thinks it is the best way of working for him.
Security is a must for Web developers. There is a set of typical mistakes that are frequently made in Web applications, and most of them are not fixed automagically by using Java. Fortunately plenty of resources are available on the Net:
Slashdot Mirror
Get used to the idea? Some people even dream of it, or more precisely of forcing it upon us, because they believe this would make the world a better place.
Rate of change? Time scales? Try 24h, clear sky, perhaps in a desert. Or 12 months, continental climate, say: Moscow, if you prefer averages. That's dramatic.
China doesn't need scientific support. China has nuclear bombs and a pretty large number of potential soldiers. These are the basis of international politics, not scientific support. Welcome to reality.
Quite simply: live on without change until it gets colder.
Much more important from a scientific point of view is whether they are falsifiable. A theory would be useless if it could explain any observation together with its opposite. Therefore for any scientific theory there must be kinds of evidence that, if found, would contradict the theory and call for extension, modification or dismissal of the theory.
For climate models that are wrong in their predictions of the future, one just needs to sit and wait for such evidence.
Do you think that if you instantiate a global system to control climate, be it political, technical or something else, will make the world a better place? Well, you haven't tried so you don't know for sure. Not doing it might be the better option here, too.
Unfortunately you could justify just about anything this way: claim that you know what will be safe in the long run (hint: act as if you could predict the future), and win followers that prefer being safe to being sorry. In reality, it is far more likely that someone will be sorry 100 years from now not matter what we do, and we do not know today who this will be and why. Any decision you make today may contribute to any kind of future outcome. Would you like to be one of those responsible for the World War of 2083 (and the nuclear winter to follow), the root cause of which will be an international body of climate control getting more and more powerful and oppressive? No? So please tell me how to make decisions on a global scale today that prevent this future catastrophe from happening.
Don't get me wrong. There are things that we can predict that far into the future. However, the average happines of mankind is no such thing.
If you believe in the theory that the source of funding has an impact on the results: never. Otherwise you would risk losing control to the evil powers of the dark side.
SCNR
I for one would. I would invest an amount that won't hurt too badly if lost. This way I could be right no matter what happens. If he fails, my decision was right to limit my investment and thus my loss. If he happens to succeed, however unlikely it may be, I get rich.
What does all .xxx domain mean? Does it includy any IP address that any .xxx name points to? If so, one could easily set up malicious DNS records under some .xxx domain to block access of children to any site. If not, porn could be accessed by any child using just the IP address rather than the fully qualified domain name.
The typical accident is a piece of malicious software on your PC, whic takes control out of your hands.
Whereas you happily accept the risk of founding a new religion -- which is what we'll get if they are wrong yet listened to and allowed to take over the world -- and all the dead bodies a religion might produce during its lifetime. This is just sick.
What I really think is that the length of this window of opportunity does not matter at all. There are reports that universal phishing kits exist already, making it really simple for anyone not only to create a phishing site but also to mount a man-in-the-middle attack. This makes coordinating with your money laundering agent the most difficult and time-consuming part of the entire attack.
Furthermore I think that those solutions are superior that give the user better control over transactions carried out on his or her behalf. SecureID fails to achieve that. It just makes authentication slightly stronger where identity never was the primary issue.
Unless we discover that ordinary people are unable to participate in such schemes, thus needing a computer to help them, which consequently becomes part of any sensible definition of middle.
Swiss Migros Bank uses client-side certificates to authenticate customers. Certificates are handed out on smart cards branded M-Card smart. They don't force certificates upon their customers, though; other means of authentication are supported as well.
Unfortunately their Web site seems to be available only in French, German and Italian.
Unfortunately the server is unable to tell the difference between a person having the SecurID token and one that just happens to have a valid code as the result of a phishing attack. Note that typically several codes are accepted by the server at any given time. Any individual code needs to be considered valid for more than a minute due to clock skew. So if one manages to obtain a valid code from the legitimate owner of the token one has several minutes at least to abuse it.
Could be monitored by evil UN. Or even by ordinary citicens.
My favorite conspiracy theory at this point is this:
If you were in a position to tamper with election results by manipulating the code of voting machines, what would be the most obvious cover-up?
Exactly. You would make sure that a clean version of the code "leaks", which shows no evidence of any tampering whatsoever.
This is why they call it post-modern.
Would you prefer unprofessional laymen as deniers? If so, why?
Perhaps they should?
I don't know about spam, but regarding viruses the keyword here is fuck. Some viruses are easier to contract after you two got naked.
You could have become a successful philosopher, or gone into politics. What did you choose instead?
You might want to read this short article: Musings of an "Old-School" Programmer by Stephen B. Jenkins. I just found it in the May issue of Communications of the ACM. He describes how he works without an IDE and whay he thinks it is the best way of working for him.
Security is a must for Web developers. There is a set of typical mistakes that are frequently made in Web applications, and most of them are not fixed automagically by using Java. Fortunately plenty of resources are available on the Net:
Make sure your developers read and understand this.