and the simpler the design, the less its capabilities, the less the security risks
Yup.
Is it mad optimism to suspect that some tiny fraction of the motivation here might not be military but a concern for the integrity of electronic elections?
Goldman Sachs has captured something much much bigger than a regulatory agency. The Federal Reserve is a massive financial operation with a charter from the people of United States to maintain the monetary conditions for a stable and robust market economy.
Goldman got the General Counsel of the New York Fed to force the dismissal of an investigator who was brought in specifically to stop the kowtowing. She was fired for asking follow-up questions and telling her superiors to change her reports themselves if they wanted them changed.
In the background of this scandal, Goldman Sachs was engaged in a transaction with the sole purpose of allowing a European bank to pretend that it was not overextended and so avoid recapitalizing to meet European-Union capital requirements. In other words, a European bank was risking an economic catastrophe that would have forced the EU to conduct a too-big-to-fail rescue, and Goldman Sachs enabled that bank to circumvent European banking authorities.
Every investment in securities involves risk, and risk reduces the price at which paper trades. The Fed is now a guarantor of financial investments, making them more valuable than they might be if true risks were incorporated into the pricing. And the Fed is just one of the sovereign assets controlled by Goldman's posse of financial institutions.
Meanwhile, we have neither a stable nor a robust economy. We just have incredible liquidity for investors in securities.
The immediate commercial demand is in the displays of portable electronics, where this technology will decrease power consumption and deliver better contrast, especially in daylight.
(from the article) Combating integrated circuit counterfeiting using secure chip odometers--Carnegie Mellon University Intellectual Property (IP) Trust-A comprehensive framework for IP integrity validation--Case Western Reserve University and University of Florida Design of low-cost, memory-based security primitives and techniques for high-volume products--University of Connecticut Trojan detection and diagnosis in mixed-signal systems using on-the-fly learned, pre-computed and side channel tests--Georgia Institute of Technology Metric and CAD for differential power analysis (DPA) resistance--Iowa State University Design of secure and anti-counterfeit integrated circuits--University of Minnesota Hardware authentication through high-capacity, physical unclonable functions (PUF)-based secret key generation and lattice coding--University of Texas at Austin Fault-attack awareness using microprocessor enhancements--Virginia Tec Invariant carrying machine for hardware assurance--Northwestern University
So of course this whole project will need to attract international support from all those other governments grateful that the US role protects the integrity of critical hardware worldwide.
After all, those same governments will probably send their very brightest and most dedicated graduate students and post-docs to the institutions conducting the research.
Maybe they're already supporting it and working on it.
The real danger is the secrecy with which these privacy-violators operate. Even if they were miraculously staffed with Spock-like analysts pure of all malevolence, they would drive the country off a cliff by avoiding the corrective of public accountability.
Suppose Australia outlawed all clothing and curtains, put every square centimeter under public surveillance with open online access, published all bank statements online, restricted the use of passwords only to verify authority for transactions, and recorded all conversations, whether in person or electronic, for public review. It would be a different village, and individual liberites would need to be protected from taboo rather than intrusion, but it would still be a society, susceptible to being changed by its inhabitants.
Instead, Australia's One-Way Mirror of Control will reduce Australians to a slave population controlled by a paranoid elite. The pyramids and monuments will be magnificent and the leaders all superhuman geniuses concerned only for the welfare of all, and you'd better agree if you hope to eat another meal.
First of all, that humans with one possession in common are not clones.
Second, that people can think even if they don't think like you.
As an aside, people don't line up as illustrated because someone is herding them with a rod. They do so because they are eager to repeat a good experience.
This bill is supposed to persuade foreigners that the United States does not gather data on them, because they aren't included in the warrants.
Well, the NSA and the CIA and other like agencies don't need warrants to gather information abroad, so this law is just a fuzzy stuffed toy to provide false comfort.
What are the Germans going to think? "Oh, what a relief, I am secure knowing that the United States of America spies only on its own citizens."
This bill clarifies that an American corporation colluding in surveillance of foreigners does so with the latitude and secrecy of an intelligence agent.
Meanwhile, it affirms the US Government's power to ensure that the people are not secure from unreasonable searches.
Perhaps efficiency was the wrong label for how the "best" design undermined "good" design.
If nuclear power had short development cycles and small increments of purchase like the semiconductor market, then it would have sustained its leading technological edge. Instead, massive investment and long lead times ensured everything built was an insult to advanced research.
In the fruition of research as projected by the nuclear industry, fission itself would turn out to be an intermediate kludge.
Seriously? Do you really believe a bunch of hippies put the breaks on something as profitable as Nuclear power?
Coal and oil lobbies, the folks paid to store nuclear waste instead of processing it into new power. Look at those folks. Follow the money. When anything of importance happens it's always money.
Companies like Bechtel, Westinghouse, and GE got special access to governments wherever they wanted, due partly to their oligopoly on big-project experience. Coal plants and refineries didn't damage the "we are the future" mojo of the big contractors who were just biding time.
They were paralyzed by their own analysis of the economics of fission-generated electricity:
1. All the efficiency is in breeder reactors. Nothing else comes close, so don't exclude them from the discussion. All the other options sound like a steam-powered motorcycle.
2. The only problem is that breeder reactors are vulnerable to being weaponized and would inevitably become vectors for the proliferation of fissionable explosives. But killing that research deflated the righteous and greedy zest to shove political decisions on a government -- but only in regard to nuclear energy, and only for the moment.
3. Fusion. Just wait. It's okay, it's not like you can't take take over the world with just oil-field services.
As for 'why' they should pay for the storage, it's because they're seen as introducing the problem. Nuclear and coal at least operate all the time, and nobody is building another baseload plant that would exceed the demand limit.
By operating a high capacity full-time, "base lead" plants are shoving the problem of variability onto other generators and making the swings much worse for them.
If base load plants are cheaper because their capital costs are spread out over more energy, then they are cheaper only for the investors, not the customers. They do not decrease the net price of electricity. They just make peak-demand usage more expensive.
This same line -- shifting the discussion to the long legal process -- was identical in the prelude to savaging Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and overturning years of defeat in their trial for anticompetitive practices.
Microsoft won't accede to the power of the law. That's all. It has nothing to do with Microsoft's policy toward customers, though they'll say anything.
Henry George looked from a high hill toward the growing San Franscisco in the 1870's and realized that rising land prices were a bug in in the industrial economy. They punished success.
His book sold more copies than any other in the 19th century in the United States: Progress and Poverty.
As I understand it, he was arrested for complaining that the war was not going well, which everyone knew but people in high places were forbidden to mention. His problem wasn't that the Nazis were Nazis, but that they were the losing.
As a technocrat under extenuating circumstances, he illustrates the worst moral worthlessness to which a technocrat can fall, and so should not be esteemed. He should never have been celebrated as an American hero.
The kindest thing you can say about him was that he had tunnel vision. He was an ambitious man who did not find murderous slavery to be sufficient reason to just take orders. No one can be forced to lead as uniquely as von Braun or forced to fight so hard for control of a project.
Was his behavior understandable? Yes, if you believe he was blinded by obsession. Was it justified? Not by a moon shot.
Slashdot Mirror
and the simpler the design, the less its capabilities, the less the security risks
Yup.
Is it mad optimism to suspect that some tiny fraction of the motivation here might not be military but a concern for the integrity of electronic elections?
This guy was a telecommunications specialist working in the basement. Are you familiar with the type?
He is a contractor whose direct employer is specified as Company A in the affadavit.
Apparently he looked in the mirror and did not like what he saw in himself or in his employer.
He was being transferred from Chicago to Hawaii. Disgruntlement?
He claims it's a crisis of conscience.
Goldman Sachs has captured something much much bigger than a regulatory agency. The Federal Reserve is a massive financial operation with a charter from the people of United States to maintain the monetary conditions for a stable and robust market economy.
Goldman got the General Counsel of the New York Fed to force the dismissal of an investigator who was brought in specifically to stop the kowtowing. She was fired for asking follow-up questions and telling her superiors to change her reports themselves if they wanted them changed.
In the background of this scandal, Goldman Sachs was engaged in a transaction with the sole purpose of allowing a European bank to pretend that it was not overextended and so avoid recapitalizing to meet European-Union capital requirements. In other words, a European bank was risking an economic catastrophe that would have forced the EU to conduct a too-big-to-fail rescue, and Goldman Sachs enabled that bank to circumvent European banking authorities.
Every investment in securities involves risk, and risk reduces the price at which paper trades. The Fed is now a guarantor of financial investments, making them more valuable than they might be if true risks were incorporated into the pricing. And the Fed is just one of the sovereign assets controlled by Goldman's posse of financial institutions.
Meanwhile, we have neither a stable nor a robust economy. We just have incredible liquidity for investors in securities.
The immediate commercial demand is in the displays of portable electronics, where this technology will decrease power consumption and deliver better contrast, especially in daylight.
Does four million get even one item on this list?
(from the article)
Combating integrated circuit counterfeiting using secure chip odometers--Carnegie Mellon University
Intellectual Property (IP) Trust-A comprehensive framework for IP integrity validation--Case Western Reserve University and University of Florida
Design of low-cost, memory-based security primitives and techniques for high-volume products--University of Connecticut
Trojan detection and diagnosis in mixed-signal systems using on-the-fly learned, pre-computed and side channel tests--Georgia Institute of Technology
Metric and CAD for differential power analysis (DPA) resistance--Iowa State University
Design of secure and anti-counterfeit integrated circuits--University of Minnesota
Hardware authentication through high-capacity, physical unclonable functions (PUF)-based secret key generation and lattice coding--University of Texas at Austin
Fault-attack awareness using microprocessor enhancements--Virginia Tec
Invariant carrying machine for hardware assurance--Northwestern University
So of course this whole project will need to attract international support from all those other governments grateful that the US role protects the integrity of critical hardware worldwide.
After all, those same governments will probably send their very brightest and most dedicated graduate students and post-docs to the institutions conducting the research.
Maybe they're already supporting it and working on it.
The real danger is the secrecy with which these privacy-violators operate. Even if they were miraculously staffed with Spock-like analysts pure of all malevolence, they would drive the country off a cliff by avoiding the corrective of public accountability.
Suppose Australia outlawed all clothing and curtains, put every square centimeter under public surveillance with open online access, published all bank statements online, restricted the use of passwords only to verify authority for transactions, and recorded all conversations, whether in person or electronic, for public review. It would be a different village, and individual liberites would need to be protected from taboo rather than intrusion, but it would still be a society, susceptible to being changed by its inhabitants.
Instead, Australia's One-Way Mirror of Control will reduce Australians to a slave population controlled by a paranoid elite. The pyramids and monuments will be magnificent and the leaders all superhuman geniuses concerned only for the welfare of all, and you'd better agree if you hope to eat another meal.
Wikipedia is not always authoritative, alas
Oxford English Dictionary: "A machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer:"
I'd add that it is not a robot unless it has sensors. A self-winding moon-phase watch is not a robot.
Nor is a badminton birdie.
First of all, that humans with one possession in common are not clones.
Second, that people can think even if they don't think like you.
As an aside, people don't line up as illustrated because someone is herding them with a rod. They do so because they are eager to repeat a good experience.
Hammering the stereotype does nothing to disprove the counterexample.
The original point: choosing an apple product does not automatically qualify someone for the stereotype.
Not: "I am an authority."
Rather: "I am not a sheep."
No right. The USA has always asserted a right to prosecute Americans for acts committed abroad.
Not for driving on the left.
The laws of the US are relevant and must be followed by Americans everywhere.
Wrong. Local laws apply, with some caveats and exceptions.
Yes. If you want to violate USA law you should be using non-US providers to do it.
Or if you want to expose USA corruption.
This bill is supposed to persuade foreigners that the United States does not gather data on them, because they aren't included in the warrants.
Well, the NSA and the CIA and other like agencies don't need warrants to gather information abroad, so this law is just a fuzzy stuffed toy to provide false comfort.
What are the Germans going to think? "Oh, what a relief, I am secure knowing that the United States of America spies only on its own citizens."
This bill clarifies that an American corporation colluding in surveillance of foreigners does so with the latitude and secrecy of an intelligence agent.
Meanwhile, it affirms the US Government's power to ensure that the people are not secure from unreasonable searches.
Please try to keep up.
Many smug. Much vulnerable. So sophomore. Beware.
Currently, USA LEOs can extract all data a corporation has. (period).
The corporations under USA jurisdiction are a subset of all corporations in the world.
Thus the original question:
Would a customer, then, be more likely to buy a service from a Non-US service provider, as the privacy laws in the US are so porous?
Not potatoes and gold.
But that's irrelevant.
Perhaps efficiency was the wrong label for how the "best" design undermined "good" design.
If nuclear power had short development cycles and small increments of purchase like the semiconductor market, then it would have sustained its leading technological edge. Instead, massive investment and long lead times ensured everything built was an insult to advanced research.
In the fruition of research as projected by the nuclear industry, fission itself would turn out to be an intermediate kludge.
Seriously? Do you really believe a bunch of hippies put the breaks on something as profitable as Nuclear power?
Coal and oil lobbies, the folks paid to store nuclear waste instead of processing it into new power. Look at those folks. Follow the money. When anything of importance happens it's always money.
Companies like Bechtel, Westinghouse, and GE got special access to governments wherever they wanted, due partly to their oligopoly on big-project experience. Coal plants and refineries didn't damage the "we are the future" mojo of the big contractors who were just biding time.
They were paralyzed by their own analysis of the economics of fission-generated electricity:
1. All the efficiency is in breeder reactors. Nothing else comes close, so don't exclude them from the discussion. All the other options sound like a steam-powered motorcycle.
2. The only problem is that breeder reactors are vulnerable to being weaponized and would inevitably become vectors for the proliferation of fissionable explosives. But killing that research deflated the righteous and greedy zest to shove political decisions on a government -- but only in regard to nuclear energy, and only for the moment.
3. Fusion. Just wait. It's okay, it's not like you can't take take over the world with just oil-field services.
the persecution of scientists
the enforcement of taboos
the "war on drugs" and other states of mind
repression of political opposition to a regime in power
all live by stripping privacy
that's why
As for 'why' they should pay for the storage, it's because they're seen as introducing the problem. Nuclear and coal at least operate all the time, and nobody is building another baseload plant that would exceed the demand limit.
By operating a high capacity full-time, "base lead" plants are shoving the problem of variability onto other generators and making the swings much worse for them.
If base load plants are cheaper because their capital costs are spread out over more energy, then they are cheaper only for the investors, not the customers. They do not decrease the net price of electricity. They just make peak-demand usage more expensive.
This same line -- shifting the discussion to the long legal process -- was identical in the prelude to savaging Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and overturning years of defeat in their trial for anticompetitive practices.
Microsoft won't accede to the power of the law. That's all. It has nothing to do with Microsoft's policy toward customers, though they'll say anything.
correct spelling: damned Sirial murderers
Henry George looked from a high hill toward the growing San Franscisco in the 1870's and realized that rising land prices were a bug in in the industrial economy. They punished success.
His book sold more copies than any other in the 19th century in the United States: Progress and Poverty.
An excellent characterization.
As I understand it, he was arrested for complaining that the war was not going well, which everyone knew but people in high places were forbidden to mention. His problem wasn't that the Nazis were Nazis, but that they were the losing.
As a technocrat under extenuating circumstances, he illustrates the worst moral worthlessness to which a technocrat can fall, and so should not be esteemed. He should never have been celebrated as an American hero.
The kindest thing you can say about him was that he had tunnel vision. He was an ambitious man who did not find murderous slavery to be sufficient reason to just take orders. No one can be forced to lead as uniquely as von Braun or forced to fight so hard for control of a project.
Was his behavior understandable? Yes, if you believe he was blinded by obsession. Was it justified? Not by a moon shot.