Or you could continue being a deceptive worm and try to get people to juggle numbers without reference in their heads, hoping they don't understand what those numbers mean in real-world terms.
Dude, this is a nerd forum, I think we all know what an acre is since it has been a standard unit of measure for land for nearly a thousand years...
SO, for every X people on earth, you need cX acres of land. For every cX acres of land, you can install solar generation to support aX people...
Here you go again. This whole argument makes no sense since no-one anywhere is proposing one single mode of energy generation globally. Who are you arguing with here?
TFA is reporting that Morocco built a CSP plant precisely because they have a lot of sun and a lot of unusable land, so it works for them. The city of London or New York is unlikely to use the same method since they have different circumstances. Where I live we have lots of coal so we use coal. The last place I lived had lots of rivers so we had lots of hydro. Do you get that?
I showed that the size of a solar installation is big. I did this by comparing it to both the land space used to generate food per person--which makes it easy to grasp what 6,000 acres *means*, instead of seeing it as an arbitrary number--*and* to the population supported on a land area. The latter was my direct argument:
No, you tried to assume that this wouldn't be practical for an "ALL OF EUROPE" scale (the quotes are your exact words). You argued against a point that no-one made. No one claimed this was a solution for all of Europe, yet this was your argument.
You argued that the land could be better for habitation and food production, when a quick read of TFA would show the land could not be used for such. You are trying to make points against an imaginary argument.
The arguments against "you will need a *lot* of land to support a high density population with solar" were in the form of "LOL YOU TALKING ABOUT GENERATING FOOD! HAHAHAHA"
Ok first when you use quote marks it means you are quoting. This is not a quote so is false.
Second, you made that argument. (watch how I use quote marks correctly and learn something) "That space of land could feed over 6,000 people [farmlandlp.com] if properly arable, or house 2.8 million people. That second figure holds a lot of weight:"
See the words in the quotes are your exact words, not something made up
That is: I argued that city populations would need solar installations geographically *larger* than the city, and everyone else came back with the STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that solar isn't consuming our food production.
No-one claimed this solution was for large city populations, nor "ALL OF EUROPE", nor the world, or anything other than the use case it has been deployed in. So you made up an argument that didn't exist and argued against that.
You made the claim that solar would use up our food producing land (see the quotes of your own words above), and this was the claim that was argued against (ie it's not using food producing land, as shown in the TFA).
Do you understand now?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. At least here in the US.
All of the private sector companies who have anything to offer have been co-opted by the government surveillance regime.
Yeah but you have some control over that, it's called an election. There is one candidate who is anti-mass-surveillance and I think he is even leading the polls for his party's nomination. Regardless of your political affiliation or religious beliefs, everyone in this forum who is eligible should vote for this guy, just to send the message that this practice is not acceptable.
If you were really interested in how we should work law enforcement powers into society, you would accept keeping encryption strong as a possibility.
Strong but not necessarily freely available. We already restrict cryptography exports for national security reasons. This is a similar concept.
Instead, you say that the world doesn't work exactly like it is working right now, which seems to me a little odd.
Nothing odd about it. You claimed we should keep on doing what we're doing, my response was referring to the fact that world isn't static. People who continuing doing the same thing forever tend to get left behind. This is how the world works.
Then you apparently try to give three reasons for your opinions, one of which is proof by blatant assertion,
I was actually quoting you there. Go back and re-read.
one of which is a fortune-cookie type of statement with no immediate application,
So the technology isn't changing and allowing new threat vectors? Ok we'll have to disagree with that.
and one of which is fearful speculation.
That is the job of the security industry. Or do you think just waiting for the damage to happen is a better strategy?
The head of the FBI has claimed that strong encryption carries serious threats. You seem to think that has real consequences, and is likely to have a huge impact on future crime solving, without any actual basis that I can tell.
Apart from the people whose job it is to protect the country saying so you mean? Do you also ignore advice from you doctor or your lawyer? Do you also question your plumber or electrician when they offer professional advice?
I'm not saying we blindly follow along, but dismissing it blindly is equally foolish
I agree that it's part of his job to bring up possibilities that he sees as potential problems, but he's clearly biased.
I agree. So how do we figure out where the reality is? By completely dismissing opinions that don't agree with our own? Or do we take it with a grain of salt and think there's probably at least a little bit of truth in there?
That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes those of us who don't live in their parents' basements feel the need for independent confirmation.
I agree. So where do we get from? I've heard similar messages from a lot of security types, and he provided one high profile, real world example. So it's not complete fantasy.
You apparently skip the step involving gathering evidence and/or actually thinking about something, and seem to take what the FBI head says as revealed truth.
The evidence is in TFA. Freely available encryption is already hampering law enforcement efforts.
Jack Griffin is flaming leftest who thinks anybody to the right of PolPot is a right winger.
Either that or you are so far right that you are off the scale?
So how do we know which is true? I did the test and came out as centre right. So maybe it's you?
I gave those figures for comparison of scale, you dumb donkey fucker.
No you tried to use it as an excuse to knock the concept of CSP by drumming up some imaginary scenario that doesn't exist (known as a strawman).
Then when presented with the fact that it doesn't, you tried to convince us that people are actually living and/or farming on the desolate sand that this plant was built on, even though this is clearly not true.
Then to try and support your irrelevant statement, you tried to claim that this discussion is about "the viability of lighting up 0.01% of the world." which is again false (it has just been proven viable, that's what TFA is all about. You tried to turn that into a discussion about "ALL OF EUROPE" (10%), which this discussion is not about)
Now you've resorted to ad hominem, you should just quit now.
I've said that four times, and you're still trying to create a strawman by creating an argument I never made and presenting it as my argument.
I don't think you know what the word strawman means. You made those argument, it's there in black and white.
"That space of land could feed over 6,000 people if properly arable, or house 2.8 million people. That second figure holds a lot of weight: to go all-solar...".
This is your argument that you wrote. You made up a scenario that doesn't exist, then argued against that scenario, that is what a strawman is.
Are you saying I'm as loony as those people who think we can power nuclear reactors using bananas instead of uranium?
No. But this is yet another attempt at a strawman. Perhaps you should look that word up so you know what it means for next time.
The poor don't pay taxes or do any useful work. You are thinking of the middle class, particularly the upper middle class.
Who digs all the trenches, mows the lawns, cleans all the toilets, drives the buses and taxis, serves you at restaurants?
These people are are just as integral to a functioning society.
Personally, I'm starting to prefer computer monitors to Televisions. "Smart TVs" aren't nearly smart, nor configurable enough, for my taste - why not just get a simple monitor and hook up a real computer that you have some measure of control over?
At this point in time, a monitor over 55" is prohibitively expensive eg http://accessories.us.dell.com...
My TV cost less than half this price (even though it effectively a monitor since I don't use the tuner, speakers or anything else).
So you get the keyboard for the xbox. Maybe a third party joystick. So what?
When you play online multi-player you get owned by all the players with a keyboard and mouse. A game-pad controller simply cannot compete with a keyboard and mouse for speed and accuracy.
This is how my experience with Linux goes. Every few years I get a hankering to try it, get beaten back by glitches, and think "ok, maybe I'll try again in a few years."
This is me too. I'm typing this on my Linux Mint laptop which I find a bit of a pig. It works ok as a web/email machine but even youtube makes it fall over (it used to be Win7 and never had a problem).
I've been using Linux on and off since it was invented. It's good for servers where you can customise it down to app specific functions only so make it efficient and secure, but for the desktop uniformity is a big plus, which Linux on the desktop will never have. There's too many distros, too many variations of each distro, too many interfaces and apps that all do similar things but not quite, and there's no consistency across any of it.
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
These quail were raised in coops, with plenty of human contact, and then released right before the "hunt". They have little fear of humans, and killing them is hardly "sport".
And a quail is like a small chicken. "Hunting" isn't really the right way to describe it.
Yet here we are, in need of this so called militia yet where are you?
How much more do you need to be fucked over by your govt before you actually do something about it?
It's a clever trick of the American Left to redefine Conservatism as fascist. It's wrong, but useful.
Left = Liberal
Right = Conservative
Up = Authoritarian
Down = Libertarian
Both US parties are right (GOP is extreme right)
Clinton is Authoritarian leaning, while Sanders is centre
Trump, Rubio Cruz, Carson, Bush etc are all Authoritarian
Fascism is extreme Authoritarian
On the political spectrum, all the leading GOP candidates are more Authoritarian (Fascist) then the Dems.
Well I can tell you that from the outside, the US has two parties, one extreme right and one right leaning. You have no left, so take form that what you will.
Trump doesn't really want it (he's only there for his ego), the rest of the Republican candidates are loons and the establishment won't allow Sanders (even though he'd be the best thing for America in more than half a century).
On the miracle Sanders does somehow make it through to nomination, he'll be lucky to survive to election day.
(Disclaimer: I am not an American. Purely watching from the outside in.)
I agree 100%
In any other country Sanders would win, but being the US it'll be Clinton. The Republicans candidates are all too crazy even for American voters. What is going on with that party?
Those would be the evil rich people who pay almost all of the country's income taxes? Yeah, Socialism - where success is indeed punished, and the stuff that's taken is given to other people.
There's two extreme positions here which pretty much sums up a lot of opinion coming out of the US right now. Either "fuck the rich" which would result in a meltdown of your economy, or "fuck the poor" which also ends up in meltdown since you need poor people to do the work and pay taxes.
Somewhere in the middle is what you are after. A rich sector to create new industry and innovation, a healthy middle class to do the work and pay the taxes, and a small group of lower class who have fallen through the system and need a little help.
This prefect world needs subsidies for big companies, and it also needs welfare for those less fortunate. Is it really that hard to accept that welfare, when applied appropriately, can provide a net benefit for society as a whole?
Eventually, yes - but Republicans know that if they can just stall until November they've a pretty good chance of getting a Republican president,
Wait... what?
From where I sit (outside the US), the Republicans have no chance. There is no sensible candidate among them, they're all fucking batshit crazy. Whatever your ideology, when you stand back and look at the choices, Sanders and Clinton come across as the least crazy of the lot, so will beat any looney currently on offer from the GOP.
I think this is kinda of an insane position for Samsung to take. They need to find away to address the privacy concerns or make it possible for people to 'securely' disable the feature, like maybe be able to unplug the pickup mike!
Time to write to your local politician.
It seems to be the norm now with the likes of MS, Google, Facebook etc all feeling like they are entitled to your private life. It would seem the obvious solution is an open-source, hardware edge router/firewall for the home that can simply block everything at the gateway.
Does anyone know of anything even remotely user friendly in this space?
Any TV that isn't a Smart TV.
I bought a cheapo no-name TV from Aldi (budget supermarket chain in case they don't have that where you live). 55" Full HD screen and that's all it does, which is all I need it to do.
You also seem to me to be implying that law enforcement can't really function without unlimited access to everyone's data, which is clearly untrue.
Nope, never said that, but that is usually the strawman thrown up whenever this subject is raised.
There is a very clear solution to the issue of how law enforcement is to function in the absence of backdoors to everyone's private data, which is for it to continue just as it does right now.
Yeah but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.
I think conservatives like to think there was a magic time in the past when the world was perfect, and we can achieve it again if only we stick to "old-fashioned values" (you know like racism, misogyny, and xenophobia). But as the millions of example in nature demonstrate, you have to adapt or die.
It isn't necessarily the best solution, although I do think it excellent. If you have actual reasons why another solution would be better, let's hear them.
I'll give you a few reasons:
1. It isn't the best solution
2. Because the world is changing, technology allows new things to happen both good and bad, so we need to keep up or perish. Therefore new techniques will be required to counter the new threats that emerge.
3. If we (society) wait until a real threat is present, it maybe too late. Therefore some preventative measures have to take place at some point.
I will re-iterate that under no circumstances am I suggesting the cops have carte blanche to do what they like. I am merely questioning the logic behind the "fuck the police" type statements which don't really serve any purpose. Especially in a forum where we're supposed to be a little smarter than the rest.
So, back to TFA. The head of FBI has called out to his bosses that encryption as a possible threat, one that already has real consequences, and is likely to have a huge impact on future crime solving. This is his job to call this out and would be extremely negligent not to. Now it's our job as the wider society to come up with solutions of how we tackle this.
Doing nothing (or status quo) is only going to lead to more crime and/or less convictions. This is not acceptable to anyone who doesn't live in their parent's basement.
Yet I made a comparison illustrating the breadth and scope of providing power for ALL OF EUROPE, showing that we'd need a land area of ALL OF CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND.
No, you tried do do was knock the whole idea because the land should be used for housing or farming instead, even though it is unsuitable for both. And no-one ever claimed this as a solution for all of Europe, you just felt the need to be negative for some reason.
The original discussion wasn't about this cute little toy to light up 0.0002% of the world, but the viability of lighting up 0.01% of the world.
This discussion has nothing to do with that. Go back and read it again.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could continue being a deceptive worm and try to get people to juggle numbers without reference in their heads, hoping they don't understand what those numbers mean in real-world terms.
Dude, this is a nerd forum, I think we all know what an acre is since it has been a standard unit of measure for land for nearly a thousand years...
SO, for every X people on earth, you need cX acres of land. For every cX acres of land, you can install solar generation to support aX people...
Here you go again. This whole argument makes no sense since no-one anywhere is proposing one single mode of energy generation globally. Who are you arguing with here?
TFA is reporting that Morocco built a CSP plant precisely because they have a lot of sun and a lot of unusable land, so it works for them. The city of London or New York is unlikely to use the same method since they have different circumstances. Where I live we have lots of coal so we use coal. The last place I lived had lots of rivers so we had lots of hydro. Do you get that?
I showed that the size of a solar installation is big. I did this by comparing it to both the land space used to generate food per person--which makes it easy to grasp what 6,000 acres *means*, instead of seeing it as an arbitrary number--*and* to the population supported on a land area. The latter was my direct argument:
No, you tried to assume that this wouldn't be practical for an "ALL OF EUROPE" scale (the quotes are your exact words). You argued against a point that no-one made. No one claimed this was a solution for all of Europe, yet this was your argument.
You argued that the land could be better for habitation and food production, when a quick read of TFA would show the land could not be used for such. You are trying to make points against an imaginary argument.
The arguments against "you will need a *lot* of land to support a high density population with solar" were in the form of "LOL YOU TALKING ABOUT GENERATING FOOD! HAHAHAHA"
Ok first when you use quote marks it means you are quoting. This is not a quote so is false.
Second, you made that argument. (watch how I use quote marks correctly and learn something) "That space of land could feed over 6,000 people [farmlandlp.com] if properly arable, or house 2.8 million people. That second figure holds a lot of weight:"
See the words in the quotes are your exact words, not something made up
That is: I argued that city populations would need solar installations geographically *larger* than the city, and everyone else came back with the STRAWMAN ARGUMENT that solar isn't consuming our food production.
No-one claimed this solution was for large city populations, nor "ALL OF EUROPE", nor the world, or anything other than the use case it has been deployed in. So you made up an argument that didn't exist and argued against that.
You made the claim that solar would use up our food producing land (see the quotes of your own words above), and this was the claim that was argued against (ie it's not using food producing land, as shown in the TFA). Do you understand now?
Not impossible, but extremely unlikely. At least here in the US. All of the private sector companies who have anything to offer have been co-opted by the government surveillance regime.
Yeah but you have some control over that, it's called an election. There is one candidate who is anti-mass-surveillance and I think he is even leading the polls for his party's nomination. Regardless of your political affiliation or religious beliefs, everyone in this forum who is eligible should vote for this guy, just to send the message that this practice is not acceptable.
If you were really interested in how we should work law enforcement powers into society, you would accept keeping encryption strong as a possibility.
Strong but not necessarily freely available. We already restrict cryptography exports for national security reasons. This is a similar concept.
Instead, you say that the world doesn't work exactly like it is working right now, which seems to me a little odd.
Nothing odd about it. You claimed we should keep on doing what we're doing, my response was referring to the fact that world isn't static. People who continuing doing the same thing forever tend to get left behind. This is how the world works.
Then you apparently try to give three reasons for your opinions, one of which is proof by blatant assertion,
I was actually quoting you there. Go back and re-read.
one of which is a fortune-cookie type of statement with no immediate application,
So the technology isn't changing and allowing new threat vectors? Ok we'll have to disagree with that.
and one of which is fearful speculation.
That is the job of the security industry. Or do you think just waiting for the damage to happen is a better strategy?
The head of the FBI has claimed that strong encryption carries serious threats. You seem to think that has real consequences, and is likely to have a huge impact on future crime solving, without any actual basis that I can tell.
Apart from the people whose job it is to protect the country saying so you mean? Do you also ignore advice from you doctor or your lawyer? Do you also question your plumber or electrician when they offer professional advice?
I'm not saying we blindly follow along, but dismissing it blindly is equally foolish
I agree that it's part of his job to bring up possibilities that he sees as potential problems, but he's clearly biased.
I agree. So how do we figure out where the reality is? By completely dismissing opinions that don't agree with our own? Or do we take it with a grain of salt and think there's probably at least a little bit of truth in there?
That doesn't make him wrong, but it makes those of us who don't live in their parents' basements feel the need for independent confirmation.
I agree. So where do we get from? I've heard similar messages from a lot of security types, and he provided one high profile, real world example. So it's not complete fantasy.
You apparently skip the step involving gathering evidence and/or actually thinking about something, and seem to take what the FBI head says as revealed truth.
The evidence is in TFA. Freely available encryption is already hampering law enforcement efforts.
Jack Griffin is flaming leftest who thinks anybody to the right of PolPot is a right winger.
Either that or you are so far right that you are off the scale?
So how do we know which is true? I did the test and came out as centre right. So maybe it's you?
I gave those figures for comparison of scale, you dumb donkey fucker.
No you tried to use it as an excuse to knock the concept of CSP by drumming up some imaginary scenario that doesn't exist (known as a strawman).
Then when presented with the fact that it doesn't, you tried to convince us that people are actually living and/or farming on the desolate sand that this plant was built on, even though this is clearly not true.
Then to try and support your irrelevant statement, you tried to claim that this discussion is about "the viability of lighting up 0.01% of the world." which is again false (it has just been proven viable, that's what TFA is all about. You tried to turn that into a discussion about "ALL OF EUROPE" (10%), which this discussion is not about)
Now you've resorted to ad hominem, you should just quit now.
I've said that four times, and you're still trying to create a strawman by creating an argument I never made and presenting it as my argument.
I don't think you know what the word strawman means. You made those argument, it's there in black and white.
"That space of land could feed over 6,000 people if properly arable, or house 2.8 million people. That second figure holds a lot of weight: to go all-solar...".
This is your argument that you wrote. You made up a scenario that doesn't exist, then argued against that scenario, that is what a strawman is.
Are you saying I'm as loony as those people who think we can power nuclear reactors using bananas instead of uranium?
No. But this is yet another attempt at a strawman. Perhaps you should look that word up so you know what it means for next time.
The poor don't pay taxes or do any useful work. You are thinking of the middle class, particularly the upper middle class.
Who digs all the trenches, mows the lawns, cleans all the toilets, drives the buses and taxis, serves you at restaurants?
These people are are just as integral to a functioning society.
Personally, I'm starting to prefer computer monitors to Televisions. "Smart TVs" aren't nearly smart, nor configurable enough, for my taste - why not just get a simple monitor and hook up a real computer that you have some measure of control over?
At this point in time, a monitor over 55" is prohibitively expensive eg http://accessories.us.dell.com...
My TV cost less than half this price (even though it effectively a monitor since I don't use the tuner, speakers or anything else).
So you get the keyboard for the xbox. Maybe a third party joystick. So what?
When you play online multi-player you get owned by all the players with a keyboard and mouse. A game-pad controller simply cannot compete with a keyboard and mouse for speed and accuracy.
Very frustrating.
This is how my experience with Linux goes. Every few years I get a hankering to try it, get beaten back by glitches, and think "ok, maybe I'll try again in a few years."
This is me too. I'm typing this on my Linux Mint laptop which I find a bit of a pig. It works ok as a web/email machine but even youtube makes it fall over (it used to be Win7 and never had a problem).
I've been using Linux on and off since it was invented. It's good for servers where you can customise it down to app specific functions only so make it efficient and secure, but for the desktop uniformity is a big plus, which Linux on the desktop will never have. There's too many distros, too many variations of each distro, too many interfaces and apps that all do similar things but not quite, and there's no consistency across any of it.
It was long in coming, but in the end, I see the quail got their revenge.
These quail were raised in coops, with plenty of human contact, and then released right before the "hunt". They have little fear of humans, and killing them is hardly "sport".
And a quail is like a small chicken. "Hunting" isn't really the right way to describe it.
Despite having some of the best health care in the world, most of us are dead by 82. And 98.4% are dead by age 90.
Thanks for ruining my day...
To protect the citizens from the government,
Yet here we are, in need of this so called militia yet where are you?
How much more do you need to be fucked over by your govt before you actually do something about it?
Scalia used historical records like a drunk uses a lamppost -- for support, rather than illumination.
Good one. I'm going to use that :)
Fascism is the state, fully expressed.
Conservatism tends to minimize the state.
Socialism tends to maximize the state.
Which is more left - wing?
It's a clever trick of the American Left to redefine Conservatism as fascist. It's wrong, but useful.
Left = Liberal
Right = Conservative
Up = Authoritarian
Down = Libertarian
Both US parties are right (GOP is extreme right)
Clinton is Authoritarian leaning, while Sanders is centre
Trump, Rubio Cruz, Carson, Bush etc are all Authoritarian
Fascism is extreme Authoritarian
On the political spectrum, all the leading GOP candidates are more Authoritarian (Fascist) then the Dems.
Well I can tell you that from the outside, the US has two parties, one extreme right and one right leaning. You have no left, so take form that what you will.
Hilary will win.
Trump doesn't really want it (he's only there for his ego), the rest of the Republican candidates are loons and the establishment won't allow Sanders (even though he'd be the best thing for America in more than half a century).
On the miracle Sanders does somehow make it through to nomination, he'll be lucky to survive to election day.
(Disclaimer: I am not an American. Purely watching from the outside in.)
I agree 100%
In any other country Sanders would win, but being the US it'll be Clinton. The Republicans candidates are all too crazy even for American voters. What is going on with that party?
Those would be the evil rich people who pay almost all of the country's income taxes? Yeah, Socialism - where success is indeed punished, and the stuff that's taken is given to other people.
There's two extreme positions here which pretty much sums up a lot of opinion coming out of the US right now. Either "fuck the rich" which would result in a meltdown of your economy, or "fuck the poor" which also ends up in meltdown since you need poor people to do the work and pay taxes.
Somewhere in the middle is what you are after. A rich sector to create new industry and innovation, a healthy middle class to do the work and pay the taxes, and a small group of lower class who have fallen through the system and need a little help.
This prefect world needs subsidies for big companies, and it also needs welfare for those less fortunate. Is it really that hard to accept that welfare, when applied appropriately, can provide a net benefit for society as a whole?
Eventually, yes - but Republicans know that if they can just stall until November they've a pretty good chance of getting a Republican president,
Wait... what?
From where I sit (outside the US), the Republicans have no chance. There is no sensible candidate among them, they're all fucking batshit crazy. Whatever your ideology, when you stand back and look at the choices, Sanders and Clinton come across as the least crazy of the lot, so will beat any looney currently on offer from the GOP.
I think this is kinda of an insane position for Samsung to take. They need to find away to address the privacy concerns or make it possible for people to 'securely' disable the feature, like maybe be able to unplug the pickup mike!
Time to write to your local politician.
It seems to be the norm now with the likes of MS, Google, Facebook etc all feeling like they are entitled to your private life. It would seem the obvious solution is an open-source, hardware edge router/firewall for the home that can simply block everything at the gateway.
Does anyone know of anything even remotely user friendly in this space?
As long as you're not running Win10, Google anything, or Facebook...
Any TV that isn't a Smart TV.
I bought a cheapo no-name TV from Aldi (budget supermarket chain in case they don't have that where you live). 55" Full HD screen and that's all it does, which is all I need it to do.
Once again, I note the biggest error of the book 1984: It failed to anticipate the role the private sector would come to play in loss of privacy.
Even bigger error, that the government is likely to be the hero in the story (since Gov regulation will be the only force that can stop this)
You also seem to me to be implying that law enforcement can't really function without unlimited access to everyone's data, which is clearly untrue.
Nope, never said that, but that is usually the strawman thrown up whenever this subject is raised.
There is a very clear solution to the issue of how law enforcement is to function in the absence of backdoors to everyone's private data, which is for it to continue just as it does right now.
Yeah but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that.
I think conservatives like to think there was a magic time in the past when the world was perfect, and we can achieve it again if only we stick to "old-fashioned values" (you know like racism, misogyny, and xenophobia). But as the millions of example in nature demonstrate, you have to adapt or die.
It isn't necessarily the best solution, although I do think it excellent. If you have actual reasons why another solution would be better, let's hear them.
I'll give you a few reasons:
1. It isn't the best solution
2. Because the world is changing, technology allows new things to happen both good and bad, so we need to keep up or perish. Therefore new techniques will be required to counter the new threats that emerge.
3. If we (society) wait until a real threat is present, it maybe too late. Therefore some preventative measures have to take place at some point.
I will re-iterate that under no circumstances am I suggesting the cops have carte blanche to do what they like. I am merely questioning the logic behind the "fuck the police" type statements which don't really serve any purpose. Especially in a forum where we're supposed to be a little smarter than the rest.
So, back to TFA. The head of FBI has called out to his bosses that encryption as a possible threat, one that already has real consequences, and is likely to have a huge impact on future crime solving. This is his job to call this out and would be extremely negligent not to. Now it's our job as the wider society to come up with solutions of how we tackle this.
Doing nothing (or status quo) is only going to lead to more crime and/or less convictions. This is not acceptable to anyone who doesn't live in their parent's basement.
Yet I made a comparison illustrating the breadth and scope of providing power for ALL OF EUROPE, showing that we'd need a land area of ALL OF CONNECTICUT AND RHODE ISLAND.
No, you tried do do was knock the whole idea because the land should be used for housing or farming instead, even though it is unsuitable for both. And no-one ever claimed this as a solution for all of Europe, you just felt the need to be negative for some reason.
The original discussion wasn't about this cute little toy to light up 0.0002% of the world, but the viability of lighting up 0.01% of the world.
This discussion has nothing to do with that. Go back and read it again.