I don't understand why they don't just put a small gasoline generator on top. Like, get one of those model airplane engines, hook it up to a generator, and continuously regenerate the battery. Add a small tank of red dye gasoline, and you're set for an indefinite amount of time.
I think there's a difference between nosing in on international agreements (which everybody does, even UK) and nosing in on a country's democratic elections. You'd be pretty PO'd if I started meddling in your parliament elections.
You know, everybody has to scramble to make that cheddar. For some people it's being world renowned specialists in the gendered aspects of climate change research. For others it's founding a startup that builds drones for dogs, intended to ride on the dogs back and launch when commanded by the dog via neural signals to retrieve objects just out of reach. More power to them.
i think the easiest thing to do is not to monitor emissions at all. Instead focus on tracking activities that create emissions. for ex. to cover the transportation sector you could track the amount of gasoline or diesel that is sold. similar for electricity generation, track how much coal / NG is getting burned. There are trickier sectors which require much more attention to track, but when you've taken care of the 90%, you can focus on the 10%. For example, fugitive emissions from methane leaking from our pipe infrastructure. Or, area source emissions from things like landfills or other places where biological breakdown creates methane.
I am very knowledgeable about this and many other topics.
but you can't monitor emissions, other than through spot checks. you can monitor air quality, but there's no straight line between emissions and air quality.
the benefit of reporting bottoms up is you can see a list of your primary sources and work to clean up those sources. if you just get a tops down number, it doesn't provide any indications about how to start cleaning things up.
Take a look at System Integrity Protection in the newest version of OS X. it doesn't limit an app to its app corner, but it definitely limits it to userspace. A description from Ars (full page here:
System Integrity Protection does this by severing the automatic kernel-level blessing given to root’s commands. The end result is that in El Cap, root is no longer an account with effectively unlimited access to either the file system or to memory and running processes. SIP places kernel-level checks on root’s privilege that can (in theory, at least, until proven otherwise by an intrepid security researcher) only be bypassed by the kernel itself. SIP’s intention is to keep the operating system’s state—both on disk and in memory at runtime—as it was installed by Apple.
This is a pretty big change from how Unix-like operating systems are "supposed" to work, though it’s not without precedent (Ars IT Editor Sean Gallagher told us that SIP sounds a bit like Trusted Solaris, and this Quora thread has some details on the history of similar "rootless" privilege escalation schemes). Rather than adding yet another superuser account, SIP provides the concept of an additional file system and process flag, and file system objects and in-memory processes so flagged cannot be altered by processes not signed with Apple’s own code signing key.
There’s more, too—the file system protections are only the start. SIP consists of four major features:
Protected locations cannot be written to by root.
Protected system processes cannot be attached to with a debugger and cannot be subject to code injection.
All kernel extensions must now be signed (and old methods for disabling kernel extension signing are gone).
SIP cannot be disabled from within the operating system, only from the OS X Recovery partition.
why? every election in the free world has this. obama has this. gwb has this. bill clinton has this. should foreign agents interfere in every single us election? if so, maybe we SHOULD bomb the world because they are literally trying to take away our freedom to choose our own leadership.
Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?
There is one and only one correct answer to this question. Fail it, and...well...you've failed comprehension.
it's a liberal-leaning establishment rag. they celebrate power, they celebrate wealth, they reject the fringe. they nominally lean left. On the dem side, they endorse hillary, on the repub side, they endorse kasich. that's how they roll.
i remember when US accidentally bombed a doctors without borders clinic. every paper in the world was like, "US bombs doctors without borders clinic!" NYT was like "Doctors Without Borders clinic is bombed; US investigating." It took them like a week to finally get around to the fact that it was the US that did it. this is when I cancelled my subscription.
I suppose. There are always checks and balances though. Anybody is welcome at a voting location, so you could stand there all day and count the number of people that came through. Afterwards you could make sure that the number of recorded ballots matches the number of people that voted at that location. This is hard to do at every polling location all the time, but a committed gadfly (or an association of committed gadflies, like the tea party) could do a good spot check.
Voting by mail is a little tricker, I'm not as familiar with it, but I'm sure there are checks and balances available.
why is this a problem? so what if there are ads or if you pay a couple bucks. You're not required to buy a solitaire app. If you feel strongly about it, create one of your own and post it. Starting at the beginning of each year, include ads, and once you've earned enough $$ to pay back the $100 annual fee, turn the ads off serverside.
OK, it sounds like we agree on looking at what works in other countries and seeing how to borrow it for us in a way that makes sense. Cool!
Regarding Obamacare waste, I would agree on some, but puush back on the following:
> Yet if it's not a generic yet, the law grants a monopoly to the U.S. based pharmaceutical firm that created it and we get gouged on pricing for it (ostensibly because we can't trust the quality of what comes from other countries like India). I'd rather see the drug companies be free to license the manufacture of what they invent to any facility able to mass produce it, and introduce some real competition there.
The monopoly exists so the drug companies can make some $$$! Has nothing to do with where the drug is manufactured. They have no interest in "introducing competition".
> If a surgeon screws up a procedure, quit trying to protect him/her from litigation. Instead, call the patient ASAP and TELL them exactly what went wrong and why. Offer to refund all of their money for whatever was botched and offer a do-over or fix at no cost. The vast majority of people get that these procedures have certain levels of risk and would find that an acceptable compromise, vs. having to drag them into court and try to get big damage claims.
what? surgery isn't an auto repair. If a surgery goes bad and you nearly die, the solution is not to re-do the surgery. that doesn't make everything better. The costs and pain of a botched surgery vastly exceed the cost of the surgery itself.
I agree that the electronic system is easier to implement. As a voting precinct, counting the ballots is a super pain in the butt! But I would argue that the audit trail and the transparency of paper ballots trump the convenience of a few govt clerks.
I'm not so sure about the integrity of the electronic system. If private companies make the system, who audits the code? Even if somebody audits the code, will backdoors be missed? Consider back doors like heartbleed and others that went undetected in open source software. I don't see the integrity here.
>A paper trail could be lost, or destroyed. An electronic one too, I suppose, but it's much easier to make copies
This is fair, I didn't consider this. It's possible that a box of ballots could "go missing", and in a precinct that was won by just a couple votes, this would raise eyebrows. This could result in lawsuits, fines, and unless you're hillary clinton who is untouchable, people getting in serious trouble or fired. It's a good idea to be vigilant about this and set clear requirements for how ballots should be handled and stored, for how long, etc.
> If I walk into whatever government office has the ballots and demand to see them, are they going to give them to me to do my own audit? What if thousands of individuals do the same thing?
Actually yes, you can audit anything through a FOIA request. If thousands of people submit a foia request, then the govt may go to a judge to find a way to aggregate them into a few common requests.
> The ballots are all anonymous, so you have no way of knowing if the ballot box was stuffed, or if the ballots are faked and the real ballots trashed, etc.
In terms of forgeries after the fact, you can verify the multiple ballot counts to check for inconsistencies. Each ballot counts the individual ballots and submits results to the county. Each county aggregates the precinct-level counts and send it to the state. These results are announced live as they happen. The state aggregates the county level results. If somebody forges individual ballots after the fact, then they won't match the precinct summary, county summary, state summary, or live announcements.
In terms of ballot box stuffing, each ballot has a unique sequential serial number, so any stuffed ballots would be immediately apparent.
> Because paper is immutable and can never be forged or replaced?
See my earlier comment about ballot stuffing.
> Of course the keywords are "correctly designed" and since politicians are the ones authorising the purchase of these machines, they either deliberately or incompetently leave that bit out.
Electronic ballot machines are designed by people, and people are fallable and make mistakes, cut corners, etc. The machines are sold by the lowest bidder. The companies in this business are the companies that make ATMs, like Diebold. Have you ever seen those pics of ATMs with a blue screen of death? Nuff said.
Also, its been shown that NSA (and presumably other countries) have subverted industry standard encryption. So it's hard to say if a well designed system is truly secure.
Then there's the open source issue. If a company makes the product, will the source code be auditable. Who will do the auditing?
Considering all these factors, why not just use paper, which is much more transparent? Also, paper is much more democratic, because anybody with a calculator can audit it. With comptuers, only a small subset of people have the skills to do the auditing.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why they don't just put a small gasoline generator on top. Like, get one of those model airplane engines, hook it up to a generator, and continuously regenerate the battery. Add a small tank of red dye gasoline, and you're set for an indefinite amount of time.
I think there's a difference between nosing in on international agreements (which everybody does, even UK) and nosing in on a country's democratic elections. You'd be pretty PO'd if I started meddling in your parliament elections.
i don't think there's a "sudden glacier melt", that would cause a crisis like a typhoon or something.
You know, everybody has to scramble to make that cheddar. For some people it's being world renowned specialists in the gendered aspects of climate change research. For others it's founding a startup that builds drones for dogs, intended to ride on the dogs back and launch when commanded by the dog via neural signals to retrieve objects just out of reach. More power to them.
i think the easiest thing to do is not to monitor emissions at all. Instead focus on tracking activities that create emissions. for ex. to cover the transportation sector you could track the amount of gasoline or diesel that is sold. similar for electricity generation, track how much coal / NG is getting burned. There are trickier sectors which require much more attention to track, but when you've taken care of the 90%, you can focus on the 10%. For example, fugitive emissions from methane leaking from our pipe infrastructure. Or, area source emissions from things like landfills or other places where biological breakdown creates methane.
I am very knowledgeable about this and many other topics.
but you can't monitor emissions, other than through spot checks. you can monitor air quality, but there's no straight line between emissions and air quality.
the benefit of reporting bottoms up is you can see a list of your primary sources and work to clean up those sources. if you just get a tops down number, it doesn't provide any indications about how to start cleaning things up.
Take a look at System Integrity Protection in the newest version of OS X. it doesn't limit an app to its app corner, but it definitely limits it to userspace. A description from Ars (full page here:
System Integrity Protection does this by severing the automatic kernel-level blessing given to root’s commands. The end result is that in El Cap, root is no longer an account with effectively unlimited access to either the file system or to memory and running processes. SIP places kernel-level checks on root’s privilege that can (in theory, at least, until proven otherwise by an intrepid security researcher) only be bypassed by the kernel itself. SIP’s intention is to keep the operating system’s state—both on disk and in memory at runtime—as it was installed by Apple.
This is a pretty big change from how Unix-like operating systems are "supposed" to work, though it’s not without precedent (Ars IT Editor Sean Gallagher told us that SIP sounds a bit like Trusted Solaris, and this Quora thread has some details on the history of similar "rootless" privilege escalation schemes). Rather than adding yet another superuser account, SIP provides the concept of an additional file system and process flag, and file system objects and in-memory processes so flagged cannot be altered by processes not signed with Apple’s own code signing key.
There’s more, too—the file system protections are only the start. SIP consists of four major features:
Protected locations cannot be written to by root.
Protected system processes cannot be attached to with a debugger and cannot be subject to code injection.
All kernel extensions must now be signed (and old methods for disabling kernel extension signing are gone).
SIP cannot be disabled from within the operating system, only from the OS X Recovery partition.
police don't face manslaughter charges for collateral damage when stopping crime. ask any car crash victim during a high speed chase.
link?
or at least say 100 yards.
transmission is a longtime award winning mac app.
I don't see the relation.I'm talking about the core principle of democracy. you're talking about international negotiations.
why? every election in the free world has this. obama has this. gwb has this. bill clinton has this. should foreign agents interfere in every single us election? if so, maybe we SHOULD bomb the world because they are literally trying to take away our freedom to choose our own leadership.
This makes no sense to me. so you agree it's a pro-corporate, pro-money left leaning rag?
NSA and all the other agencies are in the executive branch and work for obama. maybe you should shush.
i'm so sick of anonymous. they may have strong opinions, but the US election is an internal matter. we'll sort it out ourselves. butt out.
Quick sanity test: is the New York Times a liberal newspaper?
There is one and only one correct answer to this question. Fail it, and...well...you've failed comprehension.
it's a liberal-leaning establishment rag. they celebrate power, they celebrate wealth, they reject the fringe. they nominally lean left. On the dem side, they endorse hillary, on the repub side, they endorse kasich. that's how they roll.
i remember when US accidentally bombed a doctors without borders clinic. every paper in the world was like, "US bombs doctors without borders clinic!" NYT was like "Doctors Without Borders clinic is bombed; US investigating." It took them like a week to finally get around to the fact that it was the US that did it. this is when I cancelled my subscription.
I suppose. There are always checks and balances though. Anybody is welcome at a voting location, so you could stand there all day and count the number of people that came through. Afterwards you could make sure that the number of recorded ballots matches the number of people that voted at that location. This is hard to do at every polling location all the time, but a committed gadfly (or an association of committed gadflies, like the tea party) could do a good spot check.
Voting by mail is a little tricker, I'm not as familiar with it, but I'm sure there are checks and balances available.
the system works!
why is this a problem? so what if there are ads or if you pay a couple bucks. You're not required to buy a solitaire app. If you feel strongly about it, create one of your own and post it. Starting at the beginning of each year, include ads, and once you've earned enough $$ to pay back the $100 annual fee, turn the ads off serverside.
OK, it sounds like we agree on looking at what works in other countries and seeing how to borrow it for us in a way that makes sense. Cool!
Regarding Obamacare waste, I would agree on some, but puush back on the following:
> Yet if it's not a generic yet, the law grants a monopoly to the U.S. based pharmaceutical firm that created it and we get gouged on pricing for it (ostensibly because we can't trust the quality of what comes from other countries like India). I'd rather see the drug companies be free to license the manufacture of what they invent to any facility able to mass produce it, and introduce some real competition there.
The monopoly exists so the drug companies can make some $$$! Has nothing to do with where the drug is manufactured. They have no interest in "introducing competition".
> If a surgeon screws up a procedure, quit trying to protect him/her from litigation. Instead, call the patient ASAP and TELL them exactly what went wrong and why. Offer to refund all of their money for whatever was botched and offer a do-over or fix at no cost. The vast majority of people get that these procedures have certain levels of risk and would find that an acceptable compromise, vs. having to drag them into court and try to get big damage claims.
what? surgery isn't an auto repair. If a surgery goes bad and you nearly die, the solution is not to re-do the surgery. that doesn't make everything better. The costs and pain of a botched surgery vastly exceed the cost of the surgery itself.
I agree that the electronic system is easier to implement. As a voting precinct, counting the ballots is a super pain in the butt! But I would argue that the audit trail and the transparency of paper ballots trump the convenience of a few govt clerks.
I'm not so sure about the integrity of the electronic system. If private companies make the system, who audits the code? Even if somebody audits the code, will backdoors be missed? Consider back doors like heartbleed and others that went undetected in open source software. I don't see the integrity here.
>A paper trail could be lost, or destroyed. An electronic one too, I suppose, but it's much easier to make copies
This is fair, I didn't consider this. It's possible that a box of ballots could "go missing", and in a precinct that was won by just a couple votes, this would raise eyebrows. This could result in lawsuits, fines, and unless you're hillary clinton who is untouchable, people getting in serious trouble or fired. It's a good idea to be vigilant about this and set clear requirements for how ballots should be handled and stored, for how long, etc.
> If I walk into whatever government office has the ballots and demand to see them, are they going to give them to me to do my own audit? What if thousands of individuals do the same thing?
Actually yes, you can audit anything through a FOIA request. If thousands of people submit a foia request, then the govt may go to a judge to find a way to aggregate them into a few common requests.
> The ballots are all anonymous, so you have no way of knowing if the ballot box was stuffed, or if the ballots are faked and the real ballots trashed, etc.
In terms of forgeries after the fact, you can verify the multiple ballot counts to check for inconsistencies. Each ballot counts the individual ballots and submits results to the county. Each county aggregates the precinct-level counts and send it to the state. These results are announced live as they happen. The state aggregates the county level results. If somebody forges individual ballots after the fact, then they won't match the precinct summary, county summary, state summary, or live announcements.
In terms of ballot box stuffing, each ballot has a unique sequential serial number, so any stuffed ballots would be immediately apparent.
the system works!
Agreed. Ballot by mail is trickier than ballot in a controlled polling location. But so would be voting by internet.
> Because paper is immutable and can never be forged or replaced?
See my earlier comment about ballot stuffing.
> Of course the keywords are "correctly designed" and since politicians are the ones authorising the purchase of these machines, they either deliberately or incompetently leave that bit out.
Electronic ballot machines are designed by people, and people are fallable and make mistakes, cut corners, etc. The machines are sold by the lowest bidder. The companies in this business are the companies that make ATMs, like Diebold. Have you ever seen those pics of ATMs with a blue screen of death? Nuff said.
Also, its been shown that NSA (and presumably other countries) have subverted industry standard encryption. So it's hard to say if a well designed system is truly secure.
Then there's the open source issue. If a company makes the product, will the source code be auditable. Who will do the auditing?
Considering all these factors, why not just use paper, which is much more transparent? Also, paper is much more democratic, because anybody with a calculator can audit it. With comptuers, only a small subset of people have the skills to do the auditing.