Well, factories are full of stuff that can kill people and controlling those things with something an operator might treat as a personal device certainly increases the attack surface.
So maybe we're not talking about new possibilities here, but we may be talking about a new set of probabilities.
Largely accurate, except for the shitty 2000 year old monarchy part. From the decline of the Roman Empire until around 1800, China was arguably the most effectively governed society in the world. It was certainly the richest and for most of that period the most technologically advanced.
You make a good point, but it's important to note that "law" and "political authority" have different characters in the US and China. In the US even law is constrained by higher law and precedent. Lawfully constituted authority is checked by an independent judiciary and independent institutions like the press.
You can think of it this way: the US system is designed around constraining a worst-case government, the Chinese system around enabling a best-case government.
The problem is that nobody ever has a best case government, and the flexibility Chinese officials have in when and how to enforce laws actually limits the government's effectiveness in some cases. That is why, for example, China's air pollution laws have failed; officials feel free to ignore the law if it helps them meet their economic goals. This discretion may also be responsible for China's long-term corruption problems.
No system is perfect. Designing your government around the worst case means that *good* governments are constrained from things they want to do too. In China if the Politburo wants certain kinds of people kept out of the country, it'll just happen. In the US, it may not, even though the idea is popular.
Well, China is struggling with providing health care to its population too, but they have an interesting approach: they're focusing a lot of their efforts in prevention and reduction of chronic diseases to buy them time as they build out their health care delivery systems.
It's interesting to compare China vs. Russia, both post-communist states. China may have problems, but Russia is a basket case. China has a persistent corruption problem with officials charged with regulation; Russia is an outright kleptocracy. I think the difference between the two countries is this: mineral wealth. In Russia they can squabble out of riches they dig out of the ground, but if things don't work in China they've got nothing to squabble over.
Although the governance of the Communist Party of China is opaque, it's supreme authority is not the President or General Secretary. Theoretically it is the thirty member politburo, but in practice it seems to be the seven member Politburo Standing Committee, whose votes in effect have force of law.
PSC members are chosen to provide an extensive array of party experience, representing expertise in local and regional government, internal party affairs and national security, and by that very nature represent deep and extensive connections throughout the party. It's not a bad way of doing things if you want them to be stable, but because the actual practice of power operates outside the formal Constitution of the nation or party it's hard to know for sure exactly how stable China is.
Stalinism is only one of many proposed models of communism, albeit the one with the greatest success.
China describes its own system as a form of market socialism, but in fact it's probably better thought of as a kind of state capitalism, with a parallel private sector in which the state freely interferes to suit public policy. While it's not a system I'd want to live under, it is undeniably successful.
I'd describe the ideological stance of China's ruling party as post-communist Burkean conservatism. The emphasis is on getting the institutions they already have to work rather than pursuing Utopian schemes. Instead of using ideology to make policy decisions, policy decisions are made pragmatically and later rationalized, a stance described by Deng Xiao-peng's famous slogan, "Practice Is the Sole Criterion for the Truth".
"Communist China" might well be the least ideological and most pragmatic society ever devised. This makes them formidable, because there's really nothing they can't do if it suits their purposes. For example President Xi is currently reducing state intervention in private sector businesses, something that would have been heresy in pre-Deng China. But it's not because he thinks it's right, it's because he thinks it will bring the country greater wealth. However that wouldn't stop him from nationalizing a business if he thought it was useful -- or more likely quietly forcing it to follow state directives. That wouldn't be wrong to their way of thinking.
The relevant base to calculate from depends on what you're focused on.
Take an increase of sales tax from 5% to 6%. If you're focused on how much money you're giving to your local government, 20% is the correct figure to use. If you're focused on the effective change in total prices, 1% is the correct figure to use.
What computer users are naturally focused on is the amount of CPU capacity available for work. A 10% reduction in that is significant, but not catastrophic for most users. In fact many might not ever see any perceptible difference. However, in computer performance there is a powerful, non-linear difference between "just barely enough" and "not quite enough" resources. That means some users are bound to experience this marginal reduction in power as a dramatic difference on some workloads.
Don't look at us liberals. We wanted to give everyone to have the same kind of health care plan that members of Congress get, but we had to settle for a Republican health care plan ginned up by the Heritage Foundation for Bob Dole's presidential campaign. You know, the one that not only preserves private insurance companies, but also guarantees them more customers and compensates them for absorbing high risk patients.
There is another salient difference between a warrant and a subpoena: a subpoena requires the cooperation of the target. The writ obtains that cooperation viathreat of punishment -- in fact that's the root of the word: sub poena -- under punishment.
However that threat is empty if you're never caught.
If subpoenas truly compelled a suspect to turn over evidence, you'd never have to do anything like a high stakes drug raid. You'd simply have the court issue a writ ordering the suspect to turn over all the drugs and related records and wait for your evidence to show up at the court on the appointed date.
So the choice of search warrant and subpoena in the case of a company like Uber depends on your estimate of their willingness to risk defying the law.
No, if you refuse the infected device you receive immunity for the next round.
You see, in the game of cybersecurity nobody, technically speaking, "wins". The object of the game isn't to win, it's to play indefinitely while accumulating the fewest possible losses.
In that case you have to ask who it is a secret from. China and Russia have anti-satellite weapons and so presumably have the technology to track objects in orbit.
Unless it is a stealth satellite. The USNRO had a stealth (optical and radar) reconnaissance satellite program which they spent almost twelve billion on by the time it was cancelled in 2007.
If it actually was cancelled. The only thing better than the ability to spy on your rivals is the ability to spy on them without them knowing you can do it.
I felt this way during the dot com bubble. Guys were raking in huge fortunes with little more than a domain name and a bad powerpoint stack.
At the time a friend and I had a small consultancy developing software for public health agencies. We paid ourselves a good, middle class wage, and it we had the personal satisfaction of putting a real, useful product in the hands of people doing important work -- work that prevented suffering and maybe even saved lives. So I count us well-paid for our efforts, but what we could have accomplished with just a million bucks! Certainly a lot more than Pets.com did with three hundred million of VC funding. The most valuable outcome of that investment debacle was a sock puppet character, the rights to which were sold for $124,000.
There is one very significant difference between cryptocurrencies and monopoly money: people believe that cryptocurrencies have value.
That's really the main ingredient you need for something to be money: people have to believe it has value. Now the fact that the value people assign to certain cryptocurrencies is so volatile make those particularly currencies inconvenient as money. But the value that people ascribe to them is as real as the value they ascribe to any other non-tangible asset. If you're holding a million dollars (at the current exchange rate) of Bitcoin that goes on your balance sheet, just like a million dollars in accounts receivable would.
Lining of optical devices to reduce internal reflections.
I once took a cheap 90mm refractor and took all the steps I could to eliminate internal reflections. It made a huge difference in contrast, for example on images of Jupiter.
By your implicit argument, free market capitalism doesn't work because we don't use CPUs from Chile, which is much larger in population than Cuba.
It turns out that China, which has a non-free economy designs some quite capable CPUs which have given China the top spot in supercomputing for the past four years. If you look at the top ten list of supercomputers, China represents roughly twice the computing power on that last that America does.
This doesn't mean that I advocate the kind of government-crony capitalism practiced in China, but I'm saying don't be complacent and assume you've got the best of everything because you live in a country that, two generations ago, landed a man on the Moon. A lot of the stuff we have here is pretty lame: Internet service, cellular service, and -- if you go by outcomes or cost -- medical treatment.
One of the things a president has to do is reassure allies and unite them behind US leadership, Reagan certainly wouldn't have missed the opportunity this represents. To do that you have to balance assertions of US strength with acknowledging the serious consequences of using it and calling for restraint even if you don't believe the ostensible target of your words is capable of it.
And the president to some degree has to play 3 dimensional chess because there's more going on in the world than Korea. China is asserting itself globally, eventually hoping to rival the US in hard power but at present attempting to become curtail US inflence. North Korea is a major problem for them, but it's not a hand that plays itself. Demanding that China fix the problem only cedes power to them. Using this situation to unite our allies behind US leadership would do more to push China to act than impotent demands. That's what George Schultz would be doing if he were still at State.
Of course deflation is not bad for *you* if your money buys more stuff, but it's bad for people selling stuff. It also makes holding any debt -- like car loan, mortgage, or student loan -- extremely punitive. Both inflation and deflation damage the economy, but in different ways.
Anyhow, given the way many people treat cryptocurrencies it's not entirely inappropriate to refer to this as inflation. People are taking positions in things like BitCoin beyond what they need to facilitate anonymous transactions because they're speculating. Interest in cyrptocurrency is largely as an asset rather than a medium of exchange.
our whole rant is based on you thinking he said this out of thin air
Well, let's compare our ways of thinking to see exactly who has tunnel vision here. Your way of thinking seems to be that (a) Kim is unaware that the US has a large nuclear arsenal, (b) that there is literally no other response Trump could have made but to point that out to him (c) the president has a particular response he's looking for from Kim in response to this presumably new information.
Since I believe none of these are true, that leads me to speculate that the target of the president's tweet is his political base. Understand this is a relatively charitable interpretation, given that I believe none of the above are true.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, factories are full of stuff that can kill people and controlling those things with something an operator might treat as a personal device certainly increases the attack surface.
So maybe we're not talking about new possibilities here, but we may be talking about a new set of probabilities.
Largely accurate, except for the shitty 2000 year old monarchy part. From the decline of the Roman Empire until around 1800, China was arguably the most effectively governed society in the world. It was certainly the richest and for most of that period the most technologically advanced.
You make a good point, but it's important to note that "law" and "political authority" have different characters in the US and China. In the US even law is constrained by higher law and precedent. Lawfully constituted authority is checked by an independent judiciary and independent institutions like the press.
You can think of it this way: the US system is designed around constraining a worst-case government, the Chinese system around enabling a best-case government.
The problem is that nobody ever has a best case government, and the flexibility Chinese officials have in when and how to enforce laws actually limits the government's effectiveness in some cases. That is why, for example, China's air pollution laws have failed; officials feel free to ignore the law if it helps them meet their economic goals. This discretion may also be responsible for China's long-term corruption problems.
No system is perfect. Designing your government around the worst case means that *good* governments are constrained from things they want to do too. In China if the Politburo wants certain kinds of people kept out of the country, it'll just happen. In the US, it may not, even though the idea is popular.
Well, China is struggling with providing health care to its population too, but they have an interesting approach: they're focusing a lot of their efforts in prevention and reduction of chronic diseases to buy them time as they build out their health care delivery systems.
It's interesting to compare China vs. Russia, both post-communist states. China may have problems, but Russia is a basket case. China has a persistent corruption problem with officials charged with regulation; Russia is an outright kleptocracy. I think the difference between the two countries is this: mineral wealth. In Russia they can squabble out of riches they dig out of the ground, but if things don't work in China they've got nothing to squabble over.
Although the governance of the Communist Party of China is opaque, it's supreme authority is not the President or General Secretary. Theoretically it is the thirty member politburo, but in practice it seems to be the seven member Politburo Standing Committee, whose votes in effect have force of law.
PSC members are chosen to provide an extensive array of party experience, representing expertise in local and regional government, internal party affairs and national security, and by that very nature represent deep and extensive connections throughout the party. It's not a bad way of doing things if you want them to be stable, but because the actual practice of power operates outside the formal Constitution of the nation or party it's hard to know for sure exactly how stable China is.
Stalinism is only one of many proposed models of communism, albeit the one with the greatest success.
China describes its own system as a form of market socialism, but in fact it's probably better thought of as a kind of state capitalism, with a parallel private sector in which the state freely interferes to suit public policy. While it's not a system I'd want to live under, it is undeniably successful.
I'd describe the ideological stance of China's ruling party as post-communist Burkean conservatism. The emphasis is on getting the institutions they already have to work rather than pursuing Utopian schemes. Instead of using ideology to make policy decisions, policy decisions are made pragmatically and later rationalized, a stance described by Deng Xiao-peng's famous slogan, "Practice Is the Sole Criterion for the Truth".
"Communist China" might well be the least ideological and most pragmatic society ever devised. This makes them formidable, because there's really nothing they can't do if it suits their purposes. For example President Xi is currently reducing state intervention in private sector businesses, something that would have been heresy in pre-Deng China. But it's not because he thinks it's right, it's because he thinks it will bring the country greater wealth. However that wouldn't stop him from nationalizing a business if he thought it was useful -- or more likely quietly forcing it to follow state directives. That wouldn't be wrong to their way of thinking.
The relevant base to calculate from depends on what you're focused on.
Take an increase of sales tax from 5% to 6%. If you're focused on how much money you're giving to your local government, 20% is the correct figure to use. If you're focused on the effective change in total prices, 1% is the correct figure to use.
What computer users are naturally focused on is the amount of CPU capacity available for work. A 10% reduction in that is significant, but not catastrophic for most users. In fact many might not ever see any perceptible difference. However, in computer performance there is a powerful, non-linear difference between "just barely enough" and "not quite enough" resources. That means some users are bound to experience this marginal reduction in power as a dramatic difference on some workloads.
Don't look at us liberals. We wanted to give everyone to have the same kind of health care plan that members of Congress get, but we had to settle for a Republican health care plan ginned up by the Heritage Foundation for Bob Dole's presidential campaign. You know, the one that not only preserves private insurance companies, but also guarantees them more customers and compensates them for absorbing high risk patients.
Misery likes company, I guess.
For a crackdown on misuse of the Internet using government computers? Yes, I think it is excellent justification.
There is another salient difference between a warrant and a subpoena: a subpoena requires the cooperation of the target. The writ obtains that cooperation viathreat of punishment -- in fact that's the root of the word: sub poena -- under punishment.
However that threat is empty if you're never caught.
If subpoenas truly compelled a suspect to turn over evidence, you'd never have to do anything like a high stakes drug raid. You'd simply have the court issue a writ ordering the suspect to turn over all the drugs and related records and wait for your evidence to show up at the court on the appointed date.
So the choice of search warrant and subpoena in the case of a company like Uber depends on your estimate of their willingness to risk defying the law.
No, if you refuse the infected device you receive immunity for the next round.
You see, in the game of cybersecurity nobody, technically speaking, "wins". The object of the game isn't to win, it's to play indefinitely while accumulating the fewest possible losses.
In that case you have to ask who it is a secret from. China and Russia have anti-satellite weapons and so presumably have the technology to track objects in orbit.
Unless it is a stealth satellite. The USNRO had a stealth (optical and radar) reconnaissance satellite program which they spent almost twelve billion on by the time it was cancelled in 2007.
If it actually was cancelled. The only thing better than the ability to spy on your rivals is the ability to spy on them without them knowing you can do it.
Stay classy.
I felt this way during the dot com bubble. Guys were raking in huge fortunes with little more than a domain name and a bad powerpoint stack.
At the time a friend and I had a small consultancy developing software for public health agencies. We paid ourselves a good, middle class wage, and it we had the personal satisfaction of putting a real, useful product in the hands of people doing important work -- work that prevented suffering and maybe even saved lives. So I count us well-paid for our efforts, but what we could have accomplished with just a million bucks! Certainly a lot more than Pets.com did with three hundred million of VC funding. The most valuable outcome of that investment debacle was a sock puppet character, the rights to which were sold for $124,000.
There is one very significant difference between cryptocurrencies and monopoly money: people believe that cryptocurrencies have value.
That's really the main ingredient you need for something to be money: people have to believe it has value. Now the fact that the value people assign to certain cryptocurrencies is so volatile make those particularly currencies inconvenient as money. But the value that people ascribe to them is as real as the value they ascribe to any other non-tangible asset. If you're holding a million dollars (at the current exchange rate) of Bitcoin that goes on your balance sheet, just like a million dollars in accounts receivable would.
Lining of optical devices to reduce internal reflections.
I once took a cheap 90mm refractor and took all the steps I could to eliminate internal reflections. It made a huge difference in contrast, for example on images of Jupiter.
You, sir, are a regular Oscar Wilde.
Apple's Spectre patches won't be bricking any AMD computers.
By your implicit argument, free market capitalism doesn't work because we don't use CPUs from Chile, which is much larger in population than Cuba.
It turns out that China, which has a non-free economy designs some quite capable CPUs which have given China the top spot in supercomputing for the past four years. If you look at the top ten list of supercomputers, China represents roughly twice the computing power on that last that America does.
This doesn't mean that I advocate the kind of government-crony capitalism practiced in China, but I'm saying don't be complacent and assume you've got the best of everything because you live in a country that, two generations ago, landed a man on the Moon. A lot of the stuff we have here is pretty lame: Internet service, cellular service, and -- if you go by outcomes or cost -- medical treatment.
It turns out real people are assholes too.
One of the things a president has to do is reassure allies and unite them behind US leadership, Reagan certainly wouldn't have missed the opportunity this represents. To do that you have to balance assertions of US strength with acknowledging the serious consequences of using it and calling for restraint even if you don't believe the ostensible target of your words is capable of it.
And the president to some degree has to play 3 dimensional chess because there's more going on in the world than Korea. China is asserting itself globally, eventually hoping to rival the US in hard power but at present attempting to become curtail US inflence. North Korea is a major problem for them, but it's not a hand that plays itself. Demanding that China fix the problem only cedes power to them. Using this situation to unite our allies behind US leadership would do more to push China to act than impotent demands. That's what George Schultz would be doing if he were still at State.
Of course deflation is not bad for *you* if your money buys more stuff, but it's bad for people selling stuff. It also makes holding any debt -- like car loan, mortgage, or student loan -- extremely punitive. Both inflation and deflation damage the economy, but in different ways.
Anyhow, given the way many people treat cryptocurrencies it's not entirely inappropriate to refer to this as inflation. People are taking positions in things like BitCoin beyond what they need to facilitate anonymous transactions because they're speculating. Interest in cyrptocurrency is largely as an asset rather than a medium of exchange.
(b) that there is literally no other response Trump could have made but to point that out to him
Right there is your problem. Of course there were other responses Trump could have made.
our whole rant is based on you thinking he said this out of thin air
Well, let's compare our ways of thinking to see exactly who has tunnel vision here. Your way of thinking seems to be that (a) Kim is unaware that the US has a large nuclear arsenal, (b) that there is literally no other response Trump could have made but to point that out to him (c) the president has a particular response he's looking for from Kim in response to this presumably new information.
Since I believe none of these are true, that leads me to speculate that the target of the president's tweet is his political base. Understand this is a relatively charitable interpretation, given that I believe none of the above are true.