Just a couple degrees from here and you will have massive changes in precipitation patterns that wipe out agriculture across wide swaths of the Earth. Drought (of the 100-year-plus variety) will displace nations, and the commensurate geopolitical violence will accelerate the destruction of civilization. The CIA even predicts this. (They seem to be the only gov't agency that isn't a climate change denier.) So, sorry to say it, but the window of staving off disaster by conservation/reduction is closed. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything to reduce the forces we are putting into the system; I agree we must! But unfortunately we must also now begin preparing for interventions to mitigate the forces that have already been introduced into the system. Even perfect carbon recapture is inadequate, as we have already unleashed positive feedback loops like surface ice melt reducing albedo reflectivity and releasing methane. Welcome to the tipping point, ladies and gentleman. Next stop, the stone age.
Attitudes like those of the fool here who said it won't happen for 200 years (as if that's a long enough delay between our actions and mass species extinctions, including our own, to make inaction justifiable) convince me this is a problem whose cause and effect are sufficiently separated to perfectly defeat our species' ability to recognize and avert the danger.
Look at the responses to my comment and see if you maintain that optimism. People don't seem to understand that it takes decades for the global climate system to reach a new (warmer) equilibrium following the introduction of a force into the system. As a world, we seem no more inclined to address the issue today than we were 10 years ago. Climate change is perfectly situated as a danger that humans appear unable to recognize due to the long delay between cause and consequence.
"[The Pope]'s a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change.
Yeaaaaahhhh. I trust this guy.:/
Anyway, we're all fucked anyway. We've frittered already for too long. This article written 10 years ago quoted scientists as saying we don't have 10 years to wait... (http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm). Our only hope now is geoengineering, which has its own attendant problems (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/22/2310205/what-if-we-lost-the-sky).
Making strong crypto illegal would only affect those in the US's jurisdiction. It would not affect the most desirable targets (outside US jurisdiction) and would have a chilling effect on demand for US technology products.
Reading the article, it's very intersting. His argument is that you CAN'T backdoor a platform. Summarizing: 1) Say Android rolls over and backdoors the encrypted filesystem. 2) 3rd party apps can use the cryptography library, so Google would also have to backdoor that. 3) Then apps could use a 3rd party crypto library, so gov't would have to compel google to monitor for at least respond to takedown requests for strong crypto 3rd party apps. 4) But apps can easily download and incorporate new code, so Google would have to audit running apps with static and dynamic analysis. 5) Even then, people could use other app stores or sideloads, so Google would have to have an app kill switch option. This would be HUGE INTRUSION and delete apps from people's phones (even innocent people). 6) But how to identify apps? Sideloaded apps could generate a new appID with each download, so Google would have to scan for app characteristics (think antivirus software here). 7) Even if the above worked, browser-based apps could be built that use secure data stores or end-to-end messaging. This would mean the gov't would have to block these web apps, i.e., Internet censorship.
It's just not technically feasible if there is any respect for liberty, not to mention the significant technical challenges involved.
Can you give an example of what type of dangerous equipment would need to be secured and could be done so in 10 seconds?
Two seconds of thinking...
Gas valves. Motorized equipment such as turbines, motors, etc. Shut down laboratories (flames, reaction vessels, etc.) Drop security curtains or close cabinet doors over shelved materials that could fall and break causing danger.
You can automate these things while people run to a "safe area".
All of it is old hat. The question is how efficient and expensive it is.
Makes sense. I was wondering how this headline popped out of nowhere that *Audi* (a car company) had developed some amazing, novel fuel production process that I had never heard any inkling of.
Apatheism was the position of the Buddha regarding God:
The Buddha said: "I do not care to know your various theories about God. What is the use of discussing all the subtle doctrines of the soul? Do good and be good. And this will take you to freedom and whatever truth there is."
...hugely expensive to build and operate. (One estimate is $38.3 milllion for equipment to span California, and another $16.1 million annually to operate.
WHAT? That is crazy cheap for the benefit if it prevents some damage and loss of life in an earthquake. In California, with the building codes in place, most of the damage and injuries come not from collapses but from falling building contents. A system like this would be a huge boon, allowing buildings to develope emergency lockdown procedures that take only seconds to secure dangerous equipment and allow people precious seconds to take cover away from windows and dangerous objects.
He declared on April 20 that he received an email from the UK with a link to the YouTube trailer of the game containing his likeness. He thinks they used a video of him from a TED conference as the basis and retouched it. He subsequently began receiving many harassing phone calls from a UK telephone number. He then says he found an Italian language website about the game with a link to a fraudulent Twitter account in his name (he claims to have no Twitter, Facebook, or other social media accounts).
Every generation starts out more liberal and open-minded, and ends up more conservative and bitter.
It's true. And in the meantime, issue by issue, slowly, things change. That's because even though they get more conservative as they age, they rode on the backs of their predecessors, being raised in a progressively more liberal society, giving each generation a slightly higher starting point than the one before it. In my parents' lifetime we've seen schools desegregated, interracial marriage legalized, gay marriage legalized, chemical weapons outlawed, pot decriminalized, etc etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a couple degrees from here and you will have massive changes in precipitation patterns that wipe out agriculture across wide swaths of the Earth. Drought (of the 100-year-plus variety) will displace nations, and the commensurate geopolitical violence will accelerate the destruction of civilization. The CIA even predicts this. (They seem to be the only gov't agency that isn't a climate change denier.) So, sorry to say it, but the window of staving off disaster by conservation/reduction is closed. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything to reduce the forces we are putting into the system; I agree we must! But unfortunately we must also now begin preparing for interventions to mitigate the forces that have already been introduced into the system. Even perfect carbon recapture is inadequate, as we have already unleashed positive feedback loops like surface ice melt reducing albedo reflectivity and releasing methane. Welcome to the tipping point, ladies and gentleman. Next stop, the stone age.
Attitudes like those of the fool here who said it won't happen for 200 years (as if that's a long enough delay between our actions and mass species extinctions, including our own, to make inaction justifiable) convince me this is a problem whose cause and effect are sufficiently separated to perfectly defeat our species' ability to recognize and avert the danger.
Look at the responses to my comment and see if you maintain that optimism. People don't seem to understand that it takes decades for the global climate system to reach a new (warmer) equilibrium following the introduction of a force into the system. As a world, we seem no more inclined to address the issue today than we were 10 years ago. Climate change is perfectly situated as a danger that humans appear unable to recognize due to the long delay between cause and consequence.
"[The Pope]'s a learned man but the IPCC has got it wrong," says Jim Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative American pressure group partly funded by billionaire industrialists who question climate change.
Yeaaaaahhhh. I trust this guy. :/
Anyway, we're all fucked anyway. We've frittered already for too long. This article written 10 years ago quoted scientists as saying we don't have 10 years to wait... (http://www.wesjones.com/climate1.htm).
Our only hope now is geoengineering, which has its own attendant problems (http://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/22/2310205/what-if-we-lost-the-sky).
You want to divide it in two and give each party one half?
Yes, and the true owner will relinquish their share: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
=)
Making strong crypto illegal would only affect those in the US's jurisdiction. It would not affect the most desirable targets (outside US jurisdiction) and would have a chilling effect on demand for US technology products.
Reading the article, it's very intersting. His argument is that you CAN'T backdoor a platform. Summarizing:
1) Say Android rolls over and backdoors the encrypted filesystem.
2) 3rd party apps can use the cryptography library, so Google would also have to backdoor that.
3) Then apps could use a 3rd party crypto library, so gov't would have to compel google to monitor for at least respond to takedown requests for strong crypto 3rd party apps.
4) But apps can easily download and incorporate new code, so Google would have to audit running apps with static and dynamic analysis.
5) Even then, people could use other app stores or sideloads, so Google would have to have an app kill switch option. This would be HUGE INTRUSION and delete apps from people's phones (even innocent people).
6) But how to identify apps? Sideloaded apps could generate a new appID with each download, so Google would have to scan for app characteristics (think antivirus software here).
7) Even if the above worked, browser-based apps could be built that use secure data stores or end-to-end messaging. This would mean the gov't would have to block these web apps, i.e., Internet censorship.
It's just not technically feasible if there is any respect for liberty, not to mention the significant technical challenges involved.
They could have claimed to have encrypted the documents using a slice of lemon wrapped around a hamster.
The problem with hamster-based encryption is the animal rarely survives the XOR process.
[Nice username.] =)
The malware authors will surely upgrade their crypto tech now. Cat and mouse game...
Also, because I keep a zip line ready to deploy I can fly away to safety. =)
I meant *spinning* equipment like turbines, motors, centrifuges.
Can you give an example of what type of dangerous equipment would need to be secured and could be done so in 10 seconds?
Two seconds of thinking...
Gas valves.
Motorized equipment such as turbines, motors, etc.
Shut down laboratories (flames, reaction vessels, etc.)
Drop security curtains or close cabinet doors over shelved materials that could fall and break causing danger.
You can automate these things while people run to a "safe area".
All of it is old hat. The question is how efficient and expensive it is.
Makes sense. I was wondering how this headline popped out of nowhere that *Audi* (a car company) had developed some amazing, novel fuel production process that I had never heard any inkling of.
Apatheism was the position of the Buddha regarding God:
The Buddha said: "I do not care to know your various theories about God. What is the use of discussing all the subtle doctrines of the soul? Do good and be good. And this will take you to freedom and whatever truth there is."
http://www.quora.com/What-is-t...
...hugely expensive to build and operate. (One estimate is $38.3 milllion for equipment to span California, and another $16.1 million annually to operate.
WHAT? That is crazy cheap for the benefit if it prevents some damage and loss of life in an earthquake. In California, with the building codes in place, most of the damage and injuries come not from collapses but from falling building contents. A system like this would be a huge boon, allowing buildings to develope emergency lockdown procedures that take only seconds to secure dangerous equipment and allow people precious seconds to take cover away from windows and dangerous objects.
You're right it mentions CO as an output of #2, but then there is an unspecified #3 between CO & H2:
1) 2x H2O --> 2 H2 + 1x O2
2) 1x H2 + 1x CO2 --> 1x H2O + 1 CO
3) ?x CO + ?x H2 --> ???
I learned a new word...
an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life.
Their diagram shows CO2 + H2O + energy --> H2O + "Blue Crude"
What the heck is in the magic stuff though?!
What is the chemical composition of the output I wonder? Looks like the steps are:
1) 2x H2O --> 2 H2 + 1x O2
2) 2x H2 + 1x CO2 --> 1x H2O & ?? (C, O, & H2 are left over)
It's crazy this part where it drags a 45 pound weight (~20kg).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
He declared on April 20 that he received an email from the UK with a link to the YouTube trailer of the game containing his likeness. He thinks they used a video of him from a TED conference as the basis and retouched it. He subsequently began receiving many harassing phone calls from a UK telephone number. He then says he found an Italian language website about the game with a link to a fraudulent Twitter account in his name (he claims to have no Twitter, Facebook, or other social media accounts).
[...]pot decriminalized[...]
You make it sound like it's a good thing.
I am
You just described alcohol.
Exactly ;-)
It's true. Taking advantage of people who are desperate and fearful is despicable.
Wait! Eating whole foods *doesn't* cure cancer?!
I don't know... sad though this is, people who believe this shit may just be Darwin in action.
Every generation starts out more liberal and open-minded, and ends up more conservative and bitter.
It's true. And in the meantime, issue by issue, slowly, things change. That's because even though they get more conservative as they age, they rode on the backs of their predecessors, being raised in a progressively more liberal society, giving each generation a slightly higher starting point than the one before it. In my parents' lifetime we've seen schools desegregated, interracial marriage legalized, gay marriage legalized, chemical weapons outlawed, pot decriminalized, etc etc etc.