How does PKP help against a typosquatter? These attacks are not on the same domain, but using one that looks the same due to UTF homographs or superficial similarity such as keming issues.
If I'm working on an existing codebase I use whatever that uses, and if I'm writing something from scratch I use whatever's the default for the editor I'm using.
There's no way I could accurately gather 15 years of travel data. I don't have access to calendars or emails from past jobs, so all work related travel will be guesswork. At the absolute best I could probably get 80% of my travel right, and anything older than six years or so would probably only be accurate to within +/- a year.
The "connected home"-type applications are not where the value is. The big value is in areas like the supply chain, manufacturing, agriculture, retail - most industries could remove significant waste with access to IoT-style data.
The main difference is sheer numbers. None of its predecessors had this many users, and we don't know if there is a tipping point where network effects become large enough to sustain such a site for a much longer period.
The true irony is that this is effectively saying that the hiring process at the company is no better than random chance - i.e. HR is not adding any value to it.
Drinking or taking "recreational drugs" allow to momentarily hide problems by reducing the amount of thoughts, but when the relaxed state vanishes, the problems appear more acute and one feels even more miserable.
That comes with a huge YMMV. Lots of people simply do it to have fun, not to escape anything.
LG has wire form batteries in their pipeline, which would enable the entire wristband to be a battery (assuming heat can be controlled). That could easily equal the volume of many smartphone batteries. Processing power is another matter though.
I absolutely agree that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in white collar job automation. However, many of those jobs were already offshored, so I think the effects once management catches up will be even more profound in places like India and the Phillipines.
*A* pollutant, for which we had replacements ready to go (if slightly more expensive). This is on an entirely different scale.
The reduction goals in Europe are also going to be hard to achieve. The cap-and-trade system has all but broken down, which has removed all incentive for industry to reduce emissions, and Germany is moving from nukes to coal and gas. The European goals are also only half the story, as a significant contributor to EU reductions is industry moving or leaving - which is in most cases highly likely to lead to a net increase in global emissions.
e-cigarettes are also growing explosively right now (on track to becoming a $1B industry this year), and there are already tons of luxury products in that category. I think that will take over almost all cigarette use (in the West), and pipes and cigars will become even more niche than they are already. Barring legislative shenanigans from the neo-puritan crowd, of course.
Europe varies vastly in the use of paper money. The Nordics, helped in no small part by the lack of a tipping culture, tend to use cash less than the US. Generally the further south you go, the more popular cash is - with the UK as an outlier.
Anyway the whole thing is about to change with mobile payments that my only prediction is these will be too disruptive for us to make predictions beyond 10 years.
I don't really need one since my point is that even if we assume it is absolutely correct and effective, there's no way to actually make it happen in practice.
I conclude it is fucked because there is absolutely nothing in the history of mankind to indicate that we're able to come together across nations, races, religions and tribes and sacrifice for each other (and especially for the future) on the scale that would be required to make a meaningful dent in emissions.
It also seems I may not have been clear - I'm talking about practical mitigation of the effects of warming, not warming itself. Seawalls, finding new farmland, resizing drainage in cities and such. That's what we should be looking at now. We're in complete agreement on why it's hopeless to spend scarce resources on prevention of warming.
A big problem with climate change is that it responds so very slowly. Even if we somehow magically stopped all emissions by 2020, we would still be facing increased global temperatures and rising sea levels for a century or more. As it is, the earliest we could probably hope to significantly cut emissions (at least without addressing population growth) is likely closer to 2050, at which point many of the adverse effects will already be in full swing. So even in the best case we need to start working on our mitigation of the effects today.
Also, while hope might spring eternal, I honestly don't think a deal will ever become politically possible. Nobody is ever going to come out and tell 5 billion poor people that they'll just have to stop trying to better their lives, for everyone's sake. And no matter how many people die from GW-related effects, precious few will give up their steaks, their plane trips, their 19C house temperatures etc. Any politician who tries to force them to will be voted out ASAP.
Build dikes and seawalls, plan for evacuation and rehousing, create higher elevation farmlands where lower elevations may be flooded, plan for droughts and emergency irrigation, resize drainage in cities to cope with increased rainfall, improve natural disaster response and legislation... there's plenty of things that could be done today to prepare for tomorrow. Knowing people though, most countries won't start until it becomes truly urgent.
The best you can realistically do is make sure you live well above sea level, preferably in a nation with easily defensible borders. Everything else is out of your hands, save a few letters to your various representatives (unless you run for office yourself of course).
They have to do a lot more - there is no way to avoid reduced quality of life in a large part of the world (especially the West) if we want to make a significant dent in AGW before it's too late, especially if birth rates aren't brought down. We're talking fewer imports, less meat, fewer electronics, fewer plane trips. Plus we would need countries like India and China to stop lifting so many people out of poverty and into modern consumption - a matter in which the West has a hard time bringing any moral arguments to bear.
And no, I don't think there is any way to make that happen politically. We might as well start building those dikes.
What I've never understood about all the climate "debate" is this: how can anyone look at the state of international politics, then at a giant problem that requires cooperation and sacrifice from every single nation to solve it, and conclude anything other than "this is fucked, best start mitigation strategies ASAP"?
It just boggles my mind that anyone could be so naive as to think emissions can be curbed significantly, in a relevant time frame, by multilateral international agreement. This to the extent that they will even spend decades trying to convince the doubters that "no, it really is anthropogenic" - as if the problem is people just don't believe enough.
Once the bulk of cars are self driving, mesh networks will enable them all to travel at significantly higher average speeds. This is because they can safely travel much closer together than human drivers, and will eliminate almost all traffic jams via coordination, improved response times and optimal responses.
If manual cars were entirely banned on a given road, the speed limit could also be increased while maintaining the same safety records. However, I expect that they may remain limited due to energy concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
Pai has threatened regulation if they do not implement it voluntarily. https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
How does PKP help against a typosquatter? These attacks are not on the same domain, but using one that looks the same due to UTF homographs or superficial similarity such as keming issues.
Mozilla regularly complain about Google shenanigans, see e.g. https://twitter.com/cpeterso/s...
Not only do I avoid them, if I review them online I take a star off and note it there.
If I'm working on an existing codebase I use whatever that uses, and if I'm writing something from scratch I use whatever's the default for the editor I'm using.
There's no way I could accurately gather 15 years of travel data. I don't have access to calendars or emails from past jobs, so all work related travel will be guesswork. At the absolute best I could probably get 80% of my travel right, and anything older than six years or so would probably only be accurate to within +/- a year.
The "connected home"-type applications are not where the value is. The big value is in areas like the supply chain, manufacturing, agriculture, retail - most industries could remove significant waste with access to IoT-style data.
The main difference is sheer numbers. None of its predecessors had this many users, and we don't know if there is a tipping point where network effects become large enough to sustain such a site for a much longer period.
You'd think they would've learned from UPS and FedEx losing all those trucks and packages.
The true irony is that this is effectively saying that the hiring process at the company is no better than random chance - i.e. HR is not adding any value to it.
That comes with a huge YMMV. Lots of people simply do it to have fun, not to escape anything.
The station doors are only at underground stations though, overground stations are just like normal ones.
LG has wire form batteries in their pipeline, which would enable the entire wristband to be a battery (assuming heat can be controlled). That could easily equal the volume of many smartphone batteries. Processing power is another matter though.
I absolutely agree that we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in white collar job automation. However, many of those jobs were already offshored, so I think the effects once management catches up will be even more profound in places like India and the Phillipines.
*A* pollutant, for which we had replacements ready to go (if slightly more expensive). This is on an entirely different scale.
The reduction goals in Europe are also going to be hard to achieve. The cap-and-trade system has all but broken down, which has removed all incentive for industry to reduce emissions, and Germany is moving from nukes to coal and gas. The European goals are also only half the story, as a significant contributor to EU reductions is industry moving or leaving - which is in most cases highly likely to lead to a net increase in global emissions.
e-cigarettes are also growing explosively right now (on track to becoming a $1B industry this year), and there are already tons of luxury products in that category. I think that will take over almost all cigarette use (in the West), and pipes and cigars will become even more niche than they are already. Barring legislative shenanigans from the neo-puritan crowd, of course.
Europe varies vastly in the use of paper money. The Nordics, helped in no small part by the lack of a tipping culture, tend to use cash less than the US. Generally the further south you go, the more popular cash is - with the UK as an outlier. Anyway the whole thing is about to change with mobile payments that my only prediction is these will be too disruptive for us to make predictions beyond 10 years.
I don't really need one since my point is that even if we assume it is absolutely correct and effective, there's no way to actually make it happen in practice.
I conclude it is fucked because there is absolutely nothing in the history of mankind to indicate that we're able to come together across nations, races, religions and tribes and sacrifice for each other (and especially for the future) on the scale that would be required to make a meaningful dent in emissions.
It also seems I may not have been clear - I'm talking about practical mitigation of the effects of warming, not warming itself. Seawalls, finding new farmland, resizing drainage in cities and such. That's what we should be looking at now. We're in complete agreement on why it's hopeless to spend scarce resources on prevention of warming.
A big problem with climate change is that it responds so very slowly. Even if we somehow magically stopped all emissions by 2020, we would still be facing increased global temperatures and rising sea levels for a century or more. As it is, the earliest we could probably hope to significantly cut emissions (at least without addressing population growth) is likely closer to 2050, at which point many of the adverse effects will already be in full swing. So even in the best case we need to start working on our mitigation of the effects today.
Also, while hope might spring eternal, I honestly don't think a deal will ever become politically possible. Nobody is ever going to come out and tell 5 billion poor people that they'll just have to stop trying to better their lives, for everyone's sake. And no matter how many people die from GW-related effects, precious few will give up their steaks, their plane trips, their 19C house temperatures etc. Any politician who tries to force them to will be voted out ASAP.
Build dikes and seawalls, plan for evacuation and rehousing, create higher elevation farmlands where lower elevations may be flooded, plan for droughts and emergency irrigation, resize drainage in cities to cope with increased rainfall, improve natural disaster response and legislation... there's plenty of things that could be done today to prepare for tomorrow. Knowing people though, most countries won't start until it becomes truly urgent.
The best you can realistically do is make sure you live well above sea level, preferably in a nation with easily defensible borders. Everything else is out of your hands, save a few letters to your various representatives (unless you run for office yourself of course).
They have to do a lot more - there is no way to avoid reduced quality of life in a large part of the world (especially the West) if we want to make a significant dent in AGW before it's too late, especially if birth rates aren't brought down. We're talking fewer imports, less meat, fewer electronics, fewer plane trips. Plus we would need countries like India and China to stop lifting so many people out of poverty and into modern consumption - a matter in which the West has a hard time bringing any moral arguments to bear.
And no, I don't think there is any way to make that happen politically. We might as well start building those dikes.
It just boggles my mind that anyone could be so naive as to think emissions can be curbed significantly, in a relevant time frame, by multilateral international agreement. This to the extent that they will even spend decades trying to convince the doubters that "no, it really is anthropogenic" - as if the problem is people just don't believe enough.
If manual cars were entirely banned on a given road, the speed limit could also be increased while maintaining the same safety records. However, I expect that they may remain limited due to energy concerns.