Tesla is real and has been producing interesting products for years. Most of the products have not been cheap enough for consumer use. I'm figuring Musk plans to change that.
I never got on the Java train in the first place, python is where I live for initial versions,
with followup sometimes in C if need be. Java is dead to me, but always was.
20 years go, models were based on surface weather stations, a few hundred points of data for a typical country. Satellite data was mostly pretty pictures for humans to gawk at. Now Satellite data assimilated into the analsysis that is used for computerized forecasts. Much higher resolution data also. Satellite is now the main source of improvement. weather RADAR data is currently also pretty pictures mostly. *nowcasting* is about assimilating RADAR which is similar or higher res than typical satellite data.
umm... if your enemy knows that, then your enemy could tell you to stop doing something in hopes that you will double down and waste ever more effort there. This is the problem with *never do that*... you should never give the enemy rules to predict you with... uh... damn...
Fleshing out what people are saying about python for prototyping. Figuring out how to do the right thing, or how to do the thing right, is the hardest part of programming. The hardest part of that is understanding what code does, especially over the longer term, when it is handed off between people. Python code is usually 5x to 10x smaller than code in other languages for the same purpose, and a real focus is to be readable. It's optimizing the right thing, human cognitive load.
If, after you have figured out the right thing to do, you need it to go faster, then it can be quite straight-forward to substitute bits of it with other language implementations that use the logic explored by the python version. Often enough, if you figured out the right thing to do, the python version is fast enough.
mind you, python apps always leak... it's a real issue in production deployments.
yes. fork/exec works. Using multiple independent processes and trying to keep them as independent as possible will often result in higher performance than trying to keep a single application and applying mult-threading to it. We replaced a C application that used semaphores and IPC with a python one that just used the file system, and it ran between 10x and 100x faster. Things that were slowing the C version down: They wanted a single log to read, so they made a log process and every body had to post to that log using semaphones. Python version: every process has it's own log. C version, had a *router* process that would accept products from receivers, because folks didn't want multiple writers to an output queue. In the python version, all the input processes just write directly to the output *queue* (not really a queue anymore because order is no longer guaranteed, but wasn't important for application.)
Often multi-tasking/multi-threaded paradigms lead people into bad decisions when overall parallelism or application performance is the goal. Python's GiL puts people in the right mind set of starting from independent processes, and having people do their utmoste to minimized interaction points between processes, rather than resoort to multi-tasking/sychronization.
Multi-tasking is about synchronizing access to shared resources.
Synchronization is another word for making processes wait. Waiting is bad if you can avoid it.
Windows subsystem for Linux is the thin edge of the wedge... gradually build more stuff to run on WSL, and then a few years from now, everything flips, and instead of running linux apps in a windows host, the base os will be linux, and the windows apps will be running in wine... and it will still cost >100$ to buy the *license*
bute they can fire almost all their OS folks, and their cost will be nil. If they play their cards right, just us nerds will notice.
BS. Google thinks your information is way too valuable to sell it to advertisers. They don't share it. and that's a good thing. Google keeps all the information and use it to allow advertisers to target (using google's tools & API's, not the raw data.)
The dystopian stuff happens when the data is shared willy nilly, and there isn't any particular person in charge of the data: Facebook providing API's that allow open harvesting, Apps on IOS and Android that allow similar harvesting by random 1 or 2 person companies, and/or fronts for foreign entities. It is far more difficult to find hundreds or thousands of such organizations, whack-a-mole style and get them all to fix their behaviour. so to me, Facebook's business model is a problem. Apple and Google's app store policing is critical, but what Google does with data is pretty much the ideal. We are getting services in exchange for giving data to one large corporation that is amenable to pressure (the *one throat to choke* model of risk mitigation.)
iphone 5s, released in 2013, is still supported by IOS 12 in 2018. Even people who change phones every two years would prefer to be able to resell a functional device. A phone without updates is a brick to me.
I just happen to be working on something where I need a windows port of a python app, and enabling ssh on a windows box is great, and I then ssh into it from from ubuntu laptop, and I can use cmd, powershell, or even bash. great! Installed vim, but I can't use it, the curses library/screen refresh doesn't work properly. If I do man man, I get the first page, and then the following pages don't show up. refresh in vim doesn't work. if I start typing the whole window goes blank.
totally unusable. any idea who/where I would ask?
Linus has always had great taste, but his priorities have rightly shifted. Linus is getting older. He is mortal. Not now, but he sees that at some point he will need to hand it off, and sees that that will go better if there is a healthy community to hand off to. So now setting an example for working well with others is now more important for him than it used to be.
Linux is undisputably, the most important kernel in the world. It is no longer in *startup* phase, and now weirdly part of the establishment. It isn't cool for the establishment to be cruel.
> idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day.
So is the endless scanning and attacks on exposed IP addresses. So is the endless firewall tuning and maintenance to support a sophisticated internal network that presumes that every IP address will e exposed and services activated without having to get permission
Firstly, a firewall is configured, as completely standard practice, to block incoming connections. Period. There is no additional exposure. IPv6 addresses are not *exposed to the internet* because there is no NAT. People still need to ask permission for things, because the default is to deny. NAT is not the same thing as a firewall. NAT is one way of implementing a firewall, but firewalls without NAT have existed forever and restrict traffic just as fully.
An IPv6 corporate lan is not more exposed than an IPv4 one. The kinds of things you are talking about should be dealt with by governance, and dealing with professional security and networking staff. One runs services in particular zones, not under someone's desk. NAT has nothing to do with it. I've seen crappy network admins that will gladly poke NAT holes in the firewalls for whoever asked, and I will be the guy complaining about that, whether it is done via NAT or IPv6. We agree network anarchy is bad. but NAT doesn't prevent or even mitigate it.
Secondly, your argument seems to be that laptops don't need firewalls because they are on the corporate network. 10 minutes from now those same laptops will be at Starbucks, or Best Buy, or stolen and heading kekistan. Laptops need to be configured for a hostile network regardless. NAT doesn't change a thing about that.
My work has involved many customers and partners with thousands of hosts in their networks. Internal business networks without NAT is _not_ common, and the enforced policies of service exposure necessary for NAT are always a critical aspect of firewall and router configuration.
yes, I know, I work in an enterprise where idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day. NAT has become a religious cult of security people that think it has magic protective powers. That attitude is not based on any reasonable reading of evidence, just become a sort of chant, and it causes major issues for enterprises all day every day, but the issues are invariably technical, so long to explain that management's eyes glaze over. It's sort of death of a thousand cuts, rather than any one thing. NAT is also one of the major reasons deploying in the cloud is often easier... because you're forced to use public addresses out there.
but here's the kicker: That's still totally irrelevant to the discussion of IPv6. You can do NAT over IPv6 just fine. There is no *you can't have NAT* on ipv6 clause. It will work, but it so dumb that sane people generally won't choose that. But if your whole argument is IPv6 is bad for privacy because no NAT, then that's not true. If people want, they can deploy NAT also. It's just mind bogglingly stupid to do that. It's like insisting on driving your car using reins and stirrups. Sure it can be made to work, but why?
Perhaps some natting is going for cell-phones, but in north america, at least, every home user gets a public IPv4 address that is quasi-static. The ISP's don't want to do NAT because it is too expensive for them (think of the poor routers doing the natting for a hundred thousand netflix streams.) Carrier-grade nat is very rare, to the point that I have never heard of it being used in North America. You're just wrong. It's bloody expensive to do right. and if the ISP's do it wrong they get downtime, which makes the peons restless.
I don't think you know what 'expose the ip addresses' means, or what a router does. When ISP's deploy IPv6, they do not apply NAT. The fact that an IPv6 address can access the internet does not mean it is *exposed* if it isn't NATTED. one-way traffic filtering, denying all inbound connections is absolutely standard, and no ipv6 addresses would be any more *exposed* than a natted IPv4. Using IPv6 doesn't mean not having a firewall, it means not translating addresses at the firewall, that's all. All the bog standard filtering still applies.
OK, you don't like jack-booted authoritarians. Me neither. What are you going to do about it?
Your example of such an interrogation room is an argument for more surveillance: of police, of government, and that that information be public. Watching the watchers can happen If everything done by police and government is public information that can be found easily, then the police state has a much tougher time of it. Are secrets really helpful to us, or only those in power? Is surveillance the problem, or is the problem only that if it is one-way? If it becomes possible to know everything about everyone, how do we decide who should know what ? How do we catch cheaters of those rules?
Besides, the surveillance is going to happen anyways, you aren't going to stop it. No-one can. Restricting surveillance is likely the worst case scenario that restricts those capabilities to only *authorities* for important reasons like *national security*... restricting surveillance leads to exactly the case you are worried about. I'm worried that the price of defending privacy is to be defenseless to authoritarians.
In theory, networking is best when it is entirely exposed and valid. I'm afraid that in the real world, it is constantly being adjusted and tuned, locally optimized for both cost savings and security. NAT is _supposed_ to break networking, to prevent reaching into an internal network from outside without specific designated service by the NAT gateway owner.
> The addresses used by IPv6 privacy extensions rotate more rapidly than IPv4 DHCP4,
I'm sad to say "so what"? The addresses are not exposed through random network scans. They're exposed by traffic sniffing, and logs collected on remote services. And the attackers do not care, and the home or small business user typically has no interest, nor capacity in skills, to enable the IPv6 "stateless addresses" And I'm afraid the addresses are not, by any means, "stateless"
You obviously have never used IPv6 from an ISP. The way people "enable stateless addresses" is to either tick a box on their router or do absolutely nothing, as the ISP will just give them a router with it configured by default, and modern OS's will *just work*. It is LESS complicated than NAT, as you don't even need an internal DHCP. *stateless* refers to the way addresses are negotiated WITHOUT NEEDING A CENTRAL SERVER. It's FAR MORE ANONYMOUS than NAT on DHCP. each host basically asks the network... uh hey guys? is this (randomly chosen) address taken? and if no one complains, it starts using it, for a day or so, when it repeats the process, so no address is used for more than a day or so. With NAT, your public IP address (assigned by the ISP) lasts for weeks.
This whole *IPv6 is a privacy problem* meme is really ignorant misinformation. Privacy is one of the biggest pros of IPv6. breaking networking makes it reliant on intervening parties. Expecting there to be intervening parties is, itself, the antithesis of privacy. You're just wrong. stop spouting nonsense.
Please read up on Bellheads vs. netheads: https://www.wired.com/1996/10/... for networking to function best it needs to be end-to-end, and NAT breaks it. It's not a detail. It's not small kludge. It is fundamental breakage that prevents true peer-to-peer networking that happens, and forces people to use third parties to connect to one another. Hint: that's not a privacy feature.
IPv6 with RAD includes privacy extensions by default and dead easy to deploy (even easier than DHCP on a home router.) While with typical IPv4 nat, someone who wants to map your home network just has to find your subnet, then has 255 or fewer addresses to ping. In contrast, using bog standard IPv6 (the privacy extensions became standard fifteen odd years ago?), you need to search 2 billion internets worth of addresses to map each home network, which will, at least, take much longer, but really, it is practically infeasible.
The addresses used by IPv6 privacy extensions rotate more rapidly than IPv4 DHCP4, because they run multiple addresses at once. To argue that IPv4 is more privacy oriented than IPv6 is idiocy. Don't be an idiot.
Folks railing against government suveillance are completely missing the point. Facial/bio recognition and license plate reading tech are only going to get cheaper over time. At a mall chain in Canada, there was an small kerfuffle because they started analyzing data from a camera and mike to do demographics of people asking questions:
https://globalnews.ca/news/437...
Small companies get security contractors to operate their cameras, cameras that film people going into many small stores in the same area. The shops will know who you are when you enter, what your credit rating is, and whether you are suspected of anything, and none of that will be government information, and none of will require some massive db operated by big, bad FAANG, or the government. FAANG are just the first to set a pattern that smaller actors can use going forward. The benefit for most people will be decent customer service, and security more focused on bad actors. Companies will have more bang/$ on security spend, and could improve their sales. Everybody wins, which is why it will happen.
Those bleating about personal information are the 21st century version of throwing clogs. It will be too cheap, and too easy to not happen. Information wants to be free, and that includes what you look like, and where you spend your money. I'm not advocating this, it's just that the economic incentives tilt the tables that way whether we want it or not. So go ahead and call yourself rabiddog43
The companies will tag rabiddog43 as the one that drives a 2013 vw jetta diesel with license place x1z 251, his credit card number, and the name on it. The malls and shops will have footage of your car, your walk, your face if you ever visit any of them. The phone company will have all your movements throughout the day, based on cell tower telemetry. if they're google, they will have lower time resolution data from routine GPS pings. This is all information that they have as the normal course of doing their legitimate business.
You want the cell phone not to track your location? Your phone needs to talk to a nearby tower. Want 911 to work, in a car accident? what about traffic congestion data? GPS& tower data is helpful... Want people to accept your credit card? (cash will die soon, too expensive to deal with.) As soon as you attempt any commercial transaction, you are toast.
In the future, everyone you deal with knows *who you are* in the sense of having some summary of your digital history, if you are making any kind of commercial transaction, just like the small villages we lived in for tens of thousands of years. Honour and reputation will again become hugely important as it was of old, because the entire world will track how you behave. Everyone will behave well, or else.
Who needs big brother if there are a thousand little brothers? If ten or fifteen little brothers have *got it wrong* about something is that actually easier to fix than having one big brother? The real question we have is not whether we will be surveilled, it's how fragmented we want that surveillance to be, and who watches the watchers.
Laws need to evolve to deal with pervasive personal information, where it is everywhere, held by companies large and small, and understand that personal information is helpful to governments in providing services, not just policing.
It's a conversation we aren't having yet, with all the privacy commissioners and luddites trying to shove the genie back into the bottle. Valiant effort. won't work.
Spacex has made getting to orbit cheaper, and it takes a decade to get a satellite in the air. why not schedule a fuel run?
https://www.space.com/25259-ro...
on welfare, if you make money, you lose welfare entirely. This is actually substantially better than current programs. but yeah 50% *income tax* is still stupid for people in near poverty.
Basic income liberates people to do whatever they want. Doing whatever they want may lead to nothing, but it's the only thing that ever leads to anything. It also provides support for currently non-remunerated activities such as caring for others, or poetry & art.
If you guarantee people something that takes a great deal of time, they cannot use that time to improve themselves, or start innovative companies, or write the next Harry Potter.
Keeping people busy, is like daycare. The point of the robot society is that our basic needs can be met, so we don't need to base survival on labour. Everyone can live a life that in former times was of the upper class, in that they are free to pursue their interests. Having a larger group of people able to pursue their dreams has got to have a far higher upside than just keeping people busy.
My car was reporting
"is a cold day, but not unheard of"... try Edmonton (january 2018 extreme was -34.6, February minimum was -40.1 ( http://climate.weather.gc.ca/c... )
or Whitehorse, or Longyearbyen, or Murmansk, or Tuktoyaktuk, or... there are a lot places people live that are colder than Montreal is the point. -32C is not a minimum temp that makes much sense for people living near the poles or even in northerly cities or at some altitudes.
Another poster mentioned mil-spec as -55 which makes more sense. So they didn't test true mil spec, but mil-spec with a reduced temperature range... Makes more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Tesla is real and has been producing interesting products for years. Most of the products have not been cheap enough for consumer use. I'm figuring Musk plans to change that.
I never got on the Java train in the first place, python is where I live for initial versions, with followup sometimes in C if need be. Java is dead to me, but always was.
20 years go, models were based on surface weather stations, a few hundred points of data for a typical country. Satellite data was mostly pretty pictures for humans to gawk at. Now Satellite data assimilated into the analsysis that is used for computerized forecasts. Much higher resolution data also. Satellite is now the main source of improvement. weather RADAR data is currently also pretty pictures mostly. *nowcasting* is about assimilating RADAR which is similar or higher res than typical satellite data.
umm... if your enemy knows that, then your enemy could tell you to stop doing something in hopes that you will double down and waste ever more effort there. This is the problem with *never do that*... you should never give the enemy rules to predict you with ... uh... damn...
If, after you have figured out the right thing to do, you need it to go faster, then it can be quite straight-forward to substitute bits of it with other language implementations that use the logic explored by the python version. Often enough, if you figured out the right thing to do, the python version is fast enough.
mind you, python apps always leak... it's a real issue in production deployments.
Often multi-tasking/multi-threaded paradigms lead people into bad decisions when overall parallelism or application performance is the goal. Python's GiL puts people in the right mind set of starting from independent processes, and having people do their utmoste to minimized interaction points between processes, rather than resoort to multi-tasking/sychronization.
Multi-tasking is about synchronizing access to shared resources. Synchronization is another word for making processes wait. Waiting is bad if you can avoid it.
Windows subsystem for Linux is the thin edge of the wedge... gradually build more stuff to run on WSL, and then a few years from now, everything flips, and instead of running linux apps in a windows host, the base os will be linux, and the windows apps will be running in wine... and it will still cost >100$ to buy the *license* bute they can fire almost all their OS folks, and their cost will be nil. If they play their cards right, just us nerds will notice.
The dystopian stuff happens when the data is shared willy nilly, and there isn't any particular person in charge of the data: Facebook providing API's that allow open harvesting, Apps on IOS and Android that allow similar harvesting by random 1 or 2 person companies, and/or fronts for foreign entities. It is far more difficult to find hundreds or thousands of such organizations, whack-a-mole style and get them all to fix their behaviour. so to me, Facebook's business model is a problem. Apple and Google's app store policing is critical, but what Google does with data is pretty much the ideal. We are getting services in exchange for giving data to one large corporation that is amenable to pressure (the *one throat to choke* model of risk mitigation.)
iphone 5s, released in 2013, is still supported by IOS 12 in 2018. Even people who change phones every two years would prefer to be able to resell a functional device. A phone without updates is a brick to me.
I just happen to be working on something where I need a windows port of a python app, and enabling ssh on a windows box is great, and I then ssh into it from from ubuntu laptop, and I can use cmd, powershell, or even bash. great! Installed vim, but I can't use it, the curses library/screen refresh doesn't work properly. If I do man man, I get the first page, and then the following pages don't show up. refresh in vim doesn't work. if I start typing the whole window goes blank. totally unusable. any idea who/where I would ask?
Linux is undisputably, the most important kernel in the world. It is no longer in *startup* phase, and now weirdly part of the establishment. It isn't cool for the establishment to be cruel.
> idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day.
So is the endless scanning and attacks on exposed IP addresses. So is the endless firewall tuning and maintenance to support a sophisticated internal network that presumes that every IP address will e exposed and services activated without having to get permission
Firstly, a firewall is configured, as completely standard practice, to block incoming connections. Period. There is no additional exposure. IPv6 addresses are not *exposed to the internet* because there is no NAT. People still need to ask permission for things, because the default is to deny. NAT is not the same thing as a firewall. NAT is one way of implementing a firewall, but firewalls without NAT have existed forever and restrict traffic just as fully. An IPv6 corporate lan is not more exposed than an IPv4 one. The kinds of things you are talking about should be dealt with by governance, and dealing with professional security and networking staff. One runs services in particular zones, not under someone's desk. NAT has nothing to do with it. I've seen crappy network admins that will gladly poke NAT holes in the firewalls for whoever asked, and I will be the guy complaining about that, whether it is done via NAT or IPv6. We agree network anarchy is bad. but NAT doesn't prevent or even mitigate it.
Secondly, your argument seems to be that laptops don't need firewalls because they are on the corporate network. 10 minutes from now those same laptops will be at Starbucks, or Best Buy, or stolen and heading kekistan. Laptops need to be configured for a hostile network regardless. NAT doesn't change a thing about that.
>
My work has involved many customers and partners with thousands of hosts in their networks. Internal business networks without NAT is _not_ common, and the enforced policies of service exposure necessary for NAT are always a critical aspect of firewall and router configuration.
yes, I know, I work in an enterprise where idiots use enterprise NAT and it is a pain in the ass, every single goddamn day. NAT has become a religious cult of security people that think it has magic protective powers. That attitude is not based on any reasonable reading of evidence, just become a sort of chant, and it causes major issues for enterprises all day every day, but the issues are invariably technical, so long to explain that management's eyes glaze over. It's sort of death of a thousand cuts, rather than any one thing. NAT is also one of the major reasons deploying in the cloud is often easier... because you're forced to use public addresses out there.
but here's the kicker: That's still totally irrelevant to the discussion of IPv6. You can do NAT over IPv6 just fine. There is no *you can't have NAT* on ipv6 clause. It will work, but it so dumb that sane people generally won't choose that. But if your whole argument is IPv6 is bad for privacy because no NAT, then that's not true. If people want, they can deploy NAT also. It's just mind bogglingly stupid to do that. It's like insisting on driving your car using reins and stirrups. Sure it can be made to work, but why?
I don't think you know what 'expose the ip addresses' means, or what a router does. When ISP's deploy IPv6, they do not apply NAT. The fact that an IPv6 address can access the internet does not mean it is *exposed* if it isn't NATTED. one-way traffic filtering, denying all inbound connections is absolutely standard, and no ipv6 addresses would be any more *exposed* than a natted IPv4. Using IPv6 doesn't mean not having a firewall, it means not translating addresses at the firewall, that's all. All the bog standard filtering still applies.
Your example of such an interrogation room is an argument for more surveillance: of police, of government, and that that information be public. Watching the watchers can happen If everything done by police and government is public information that can be found easily, then the police state has a much tougher time of it. Are secrets really helpful to us, or only those in power? Is surveillance the problem, or is the problem only that if it is one-way? If it becomes possible to know everything about everyone, how do we decide who should know what ? How do we catch cheaters of those rules?
Besides, the surveillance is going to happen anyways, you aren't going to stop it. No-one can. Restricting surveillance is likely the worst case scenario that restricts those capabilities to only *authorities* for important reasons like *national security*... restricting surveillance leads to exactly the case you are worried about. I'm worried that the price of defending privacy is to be defenseless to authoritarians.
In theory, networking is best when it is entirely exposed and valid. I'm afraid that in the real world, it is constantly being adjusted and tuned, locally optimized for both cost savings and security. NAT is _supposed_ to break networking, to prevent reaching into an internal network from outside without specific designated service by the NAT gateway owner.
> The addresses used by IPv6 privacy extensions rotate more rapidly than IPv4 DHCP4,
I'm sad to say "so what"? The addresses are not exposed through random network scans. They're exposed by traffic sniffing, and logs collected on remote services. And the attackers do not care, and the home or small business user typically has no interest, nor capacity in skills, to enable the IPv6 "stateless addresses" And I'm afraid the addresses are not, by any means, "stateless"
You obviously have never used IPv6 from an ISP. The way people "enable stateless addresses" is to either tick a box on their router or do absolutely nothing, as the ISP will just give them a router with it configured by default, and modern OS's will *just work*. It is LESS complicated than NAT, as you don't even need an internal DHCP. *stateless* refers to the way addresses are negotiated WITHOUT NEEDING A CENTRAL SERVER. It's FAR MORE ANONYMOUS than NAT on DHCP. each host basically asks the network... uh hey guys? is this (randomly chosen) address taken? and if no one complains, it starts using it, for a day or so, when it repeats the process, so no address is used for more than a day or so. With NAT, your public IP address (assigned by the ISP) lasts for weeks.
This whole *IPv6 is a privacy problem* meme is really ignorant misinformation. Privacy is one of the biggest pros of IPv6. breaking networking makes it reliant on intervening parties. Expecting there to be intervening parties is, itself, the antithesis of privacy. You're just wrong. stop spouting nonsense.
IPv6 with RAD includes privacy extensions by default and dead easy to deploy (even easier than DHCP on a home router.) While with typical IPv4 nat, someone who wants to map your home network just has to find your subnet, then has 255 or fewer addresses to ping. In contrast, using bog standard IPv6 (the privacy extensions became standard fifteen odd years ago?), you need to search 2 billion internets worth of addresses to map each home network, which will, at least, take much longer, but really, it is practically infeasible.
The addresses used by IPv6 privacy extensions rotate more rapidly than IPv4 DHCP4, because they run multiple addresses at once. To argue that IPv4 is more privacy oriented than IPv6 is idiocy. Don't be an idiot.
Small companies get security contractors to operate their cameras, cameras that film people going into many small stores in the same area. The shops will know who you are when you enter, what your credit rating is, and whether you are suspected of anything, and none of that will be government information, and none of will require some massive db operated by big, bad FAANG, or the government. FAANG are just the first to set a pattern that smaller actors can use going forward. The benefit for most people will be decent customer service, and security more focused on bad actors. Companies will have more bang/$ on security spend, and could improve their sales. Everybody wins, which is why it will happen.
Those bleating about personal information are the 21st century version of throwing clogs. It will be too cheap, and too easy to not happen. Information wants to be free, and that includes what you look like, and where you spend your money. I'm not advocating this, it's just that the economic incentives tilt the tables that way whether we want it or not. So go ahead and call yourself rabiddog43
The companies will tag rabiddog43 as the one that drives a 2013 vw jetta diesel with license place x1z 251, his credit card number, and the name on it. The malls and shops will have footage of your car, your walk, your face if you ever visit any of them. The phone company will have all your movements throughout the day, based on cell tower telemetry. if they're google, they will have lower time resolution data from routine GPS pings. This is all information that they have as the normal course of doing their legitimate business.
You want the cell phone not to track your location? Your phone needs to talk to a nearby tower. Want 911 to work, in a car accident? what about traffic congestion data? GPS& tower data is helpful... Want people to accept your credit card? (cash will die soon, too expensive to deal with.) As soon as you attempt any commercial transaction, you are toast.
In the future, everyone you deal with knows *who you are* in the sense of having some summary of your digital history, if you are making any kind of commercial transaction, just like the small villages we lived in for tens of thousands of years. Honour and reputation will again become hugely important as it was of old, because the entire world will track how you behave. Everyone will behave well, or else.
Who needs big brother if there are a thousand little brothers? If ten or fifteen little brothers have *got it wrong* about something is that actually easier to fix than having one big brother? The real question we have is not whether we will be surveilled, it's how fragmented we want that surveillance to be, and who watches the watchers.
Laws need to evolve to deal with pervasive personal information, where it is everywhere, held by companies large and small, and understand that personal information is helpful to governments in providing services, not just policing. It's a conversation we aren't having yet, with all the privacy commissioners and luddites trying to shove the genie back into the bottle. Valiant effort. won't work.
OK, but a tesla roadster has been sent to orbit between us and Mars, with a falcon heavy... or worst case, for 2x the price a ULA Atlas.
Spacex has made getting to orbit cheaper, and it takes a decade to get a satellite in the air. why not schedule a fuel run? https://www.space.com/25259-ro...
on welfare, if you make money, you lose welfare entirely. This is actually substantially better than current programs. but yeah 50% *income tax* is still stupid for people in near poverty.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
http://thehill.com/opinion/nat...
If you guarantee people something that takes a great deal of time, they cannot use that time to improve themselves, or start innovative companies, or write the next Harry Potter.
Keeping people busy, is like daycare. The point of the robot society is that our basic needs can be met, so we don't need to base survival on labour. Everyone can live a life that in former times was of the upper class, in that they are free to pursue their interests. Having a larger group of people able to pursue their dreams has got to have a far higher upside than just keeping people busy.
that makes more sense. -32C doesn't make sense as a minimum for Military needs.
Another poster mentioned mil-spec as -55 which makes more sense. So they didn't test true mil spec, but mil-spec with a reduced temperature range... Makes more sense.