You're going to die no matter what, so who cares if you smoke and eat junk food all day? Sounds like a rationalization to do what you want to without regards to the consequences.
Yes, eventually the trees will sequester the carbon, but they cannot sequester it fast enough to prevent the concentration of carbon dioxide form rising steeply due to humans burning fossil fuels. That's why the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen steadily since the industrial revolution. Again, check your math. Yes, it's harder than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA! I can't hear you!"
Sounds good to me. All we have to do is get everyone on the planet to plant several tons of trees every year (30 billion tons CO2 emissions per year / 7 billion people). Should be easy!
Yes, reversible computation can theoretically approach zero energy dissipation, but if you use no energy, the computation is just as likely to run forwards as backwards. You still need to consume energy to get the computation to make progress in one direction or the other. Richard Feynman has a good description of this idea in his Lectures on Computation.
I'm sure energy prices will continue to go up, even if we use less. As we remove the easiest fossil fuels to remove, the remaining are harder and more costly to remove. But they will go up more slowly if the demand is less.
California's per capita electricity use has been nearly level for decades due to their energy efficiency standards. Now that similar standards are being adopted nationwide, nationwide electricity use is leveling off. If we try even harder, we can reduce electricity use. Not only does it not harm the economy, it helps us all save money because we're paying for less energy, and we're paying less per unit of energy because demand is lower.
A few years ago I taught six sessions of Logo programming to a class of students ranging from second to sixth grade. I was a bit ambitious and tried to teach about control flow and input and output, and I suppose some of it got through. They mostly made the turtles make circular patterns using repeat, forward, right, and left. For one presentation, I think having them write Logo programs is ideal because they're able to make circles right away on the first day. At least they'll get a taste of what it's like to program, and it will be fun.
Improve energy efficiency. That doesn't cost money -- it saves money. It's a no-brainer.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, we'll also need to begin to switch away from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to alternative energy sources such as nuclear, solar, biofuels, and so on. How much it costs to do it will depend on how much we can improve energy efficiency, what mixtures of energy sources we use, how much research and development we put into alternative energy sources so that the technologies can be scaled up economically, and many other factors.
One thing's for sure, though. Fossil fuels can't last forever, so it's not a matter of whether we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's when do we do it. We can influence the cost of doing it, but we'll have to do it regardless.
Or the people who practiced religions that helped them survive lived to reproduce. This caused their religious beliefs to spread, but also caused the number of people who had a natural proclivity for practicing those religious beliefs to increase. So evolution actually leads to people who cooperate and take care of each other.
For some reason, people who argue for intelligent design think evolution means everyone is selfish and there are no morals or ethics. I don't know where they get such a foolish idea.
The bright side is that the people who innovated to make the patents are being compensated for their efforts. This is how patents motivate people to innovate. Would you prefer if Google could use other people's innovations without compensating them?
No, plain text does not protect against a MITM attack. That is why we have SSL. I have no seen anyone say it's impossible to launch a MITM attack with a certificate that is verified, but it's much harder. All encryption can be broken somehow. That doesn't make it useless. The point of encryption is to make it harder to make attacks, not impossible. Just as the lock on your front door makes it harder to break into your house. That a lock doesn't make it impossible to break in doesn't make it useless. The answer to your question is "nothing". The browser cannot distinguish between a legitimate self-signed certificate and a MITM attack. That's why using a self-signed certificate brings up the warning for a MITM attack. It's just as when you type your password incorrectly you are denied access to your computer. The computer cannot distinguish between a legitimate user typing a password incorrectly and an intruder trying to get in. Password do not make it impossible for intruders to get in, but that does not make passwords useless.
A MITM attack does not mean "having been there on every single instance and interrupting every single communication since you first contacted this site." The MITM happens only once. When it does, you get a warning about it. Because accessing a plain HTTP page cannot detect a MITM attack, you do not get a warning for it.
We already have that option. Use a self-signed cert and you get encryption without verification. The user gets a warning that the recipient isn't verified. With a good browser, the user can accept the certificate upon the first visit to the site and never see the warning again. At least, that's what Firefox does.
Oh. So when someone launches a man-in-the-middle attack against me, I have to realize that little lock isn't there before I enter my password? I think I may not notice that. I would prefer a big dialog that warns me of a potential man-in-the-middle attack that I can't easily click past. Of course, that means that I'll get that for a self-signed page. Big deal. I just accept the certificate and never see the dialog again. I stay safe and I'm barely inconvenienced.
No, the two things have nothing to do with each other. I can be sure I'm in a sleazy liquor store. That doesn't mean the store is trustworthy or reliable. If I had an item that I had to make sure go to the store clerk, I need to know that I'm in the store. I do not care how reliable or trustworthy it is if I just want to make sure I give the item to the clerk.
If you think the padlock on an HTTPS site means you can trust the site itself, you're very, very mistaken! It only means that when you type your credit card information on the site, only they will be able to see it. It doesn't mean they won't post it in a public location or use it to rack up charges on your account. It means the communications channel is secure. That the communication is secure is reliable and trustworthy. Understand the difference?
There isn't any objection to self-signed certificates. It's just that when a browser encounters one, it cannot tell whether that's a legitimate certificate or one from an impostor attempting a man-in-the-middle attack. That's why the browser throws up a warning -- to warn the user of a potential man-in-the-middle attack. Go ahead and use self-signed certificates. Just don't expect a browser to accept it without warning the user, because then the browser wouldn't protect against a MITM attack.
I was referring to "Break up the concepts of verification and encryption." Do that and you get encrypted communication with... someone. That isn't secure.
But then it wouldn't be protecting against man-in-the-middle attacks, just as a computer that let you type in any password wouldn't protect against intruders.
Slashdot Mirror
In that case, we impose tariffs on counties that burn more fossil fuels. Then they will have economic incentive to burn fewer fossil fuels.
Gas was as expensive as it is now when Bush was in office. In any case, your argument is post hoc ergo proper hoc.
You're going to die no matter what, so who cares if you smoke and eat junk food all day? Sounds like a rationalization to do what you want to without regards to the consequences.
The outside of a mug with hot coffee inside is hot. The outside of a thermos with hot coffee inside is room temperature. It's pretty simple, isn't it?
Yes, eventually the trees will sequester the carbon, but they cannot sequester it fast enough to prevent the concentration of carbon dioxide form rising steeply due to humans burning fossil fuels. That's why the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen steadily since the industrial revolution. Again, check your math. Yes, it's harder than sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA! I can't hear you!"
Sounds good to me. All we have to do is get everyone on the planet to plant several tons of trees every year (30 billion tons CO2 emissions per year / 7 billion people). Should be easy!
Yes, reversible computation can theoretically approach zero energy dissipation, but if you use no energy, the computation is just as likely to run forwards as backwards. You still need to consume energy to get the computation to make progress in one direction or the other. Richard Feynman has a good description of this idea in his Lectures on Computation.
I'm sure energy prices will continue to go up, even if we use less. As we remove the easiest fossil fuels to remove, the remaining are harder and more costly to remove. But they will go up more slowly if the demand is less.
California's per capita electricity use has been nearly level for decades due to their energy efficiency standards. Now that similar standards are being adopted nationwide, nationwide electricity use is leveling off. If we try even harder, we can reduce electricity use. Not only does it not harm the economy, it helps us all save money because we're paying for less energy, and we're paying less per unit of energy because demand is lower.
A few years ago I taught six sessions of Logo programming to a class of students ranging from second to sixth grade. I was a bit ambitious and tried to teach about control flow and input and output, and I suppose some of it got through. They mostly made the turtles make circular patterns using repeat, forward, right, and left. For one presentation, I think having them write Logo programs is ideal because they're able to make circles right away on the first day. At least they'll get a taste of what it's like to program, and it will be fun.
A greenhouse works by blocking infrared radiation from escaping the greenhouse, just like greenhouses gasses block infrared radiation from escaping the atmosphere.
Improve energy efficiency. That doesn't cost money -- it saves money. It's a no-brainer.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions dramatically, we'll also need to begin to switch away from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) to alternative energy sources such as nuclear, solar, biofuels, and so on. How much it costs to do it will depend on how much we can improve energy efficiency, what mixtures of energy sources we use, how much research and development we put into alternative energy sources so that the technologies can be scaled up economically, and many other factors.
One thing's for sure, though. Fossil fuels can't last forever, so it's not a matter of whether we reduce carbon dioxide emissions, it's when do we do it. We can influence the cost of doing it, but we'll have to do it regardless.
Or the people who practiced religions that helped them survive lived to reproduce. This caused their religious beliefs to spread, but also caused the number of people who had a natural proclivity for practicing those religious beliefs to increase. So evolution actually leads to people who cooperate and take care of each other.
For some reason, people who argue for intelligent design think evolution means everyone is selfish and there are no morals or ethics. I don't know where they get such a foolish idea.
Why do you assume compensated means wealthy? Compensated means gainfully employed. I can show you millions.
The bright side is that the people who innovated to make the patents are being compensated for their efforts. This is how patents motivate people to innovate. Would you prefer if Google could use other people's innovations without compensating them?
No, plain text does not protect against a MITM attack. That is why we have SSL. I have no seen anyone say it's impossible to launch a MITM attack with a certificate that is verified, but it's much harder. All encryption can be broken somehow. That doesn't make it useless. The point of encryption is to make it harder to make attacks, not impossible. Just as the lock on your front door makes it harder to break into your house. That a lock doesn't make it impossible to break in doesn't make it useless. The answer to your question is "nothing". The browser cannot distinguish between a legitimate self-signed certificate and a MITM attack. That's why using a self-signed certificate brings up the warning for a MITM attack. It's just as when you type your password incorrectly you are denied access to your computer. The computer cannot distinguish between a legitimate user typing a password incorrectly and an intruder trying to get in. Password do not make it impossible for intruders to get in, but that does not make passwords useless.
A MITM attack does not mean "having been there on every single instance and interrupting every single communication since you first contacted this site." The MITM happens only once. When it does, you get a warning about it. Because accessing a plain HTTP page cannot detect a MITM attack, you do not get a warning for it.
We already have that option. Use a self-signed cert and you get encryption without verification. The user gets a warning that the recipient isn't verified. With a good browser, the user can accept the certificate upon the first visit to the site and never see the warning again. At least, that's what Firefox does.
Oh. So when someone launches a man-in-the-middle attack against me, I have to realize that little lock isn't there before I enter my password? I think I may not notice that. I would prefer a big dialog that warns me of a potential man-in-the-middle attack that I can't easily click past. Of course, that means that I'll get that for a self-signed page. Big deal. I just accept the certificate and never see the dialog again. I stay safe and I'm barely inconvenienced.
Oh, so every browser should throw up a warning for every page with no encryption? That's so dumb, I don't even know what to say!
No, the two things have nothing to do with each other. I can be sure I'm in a sleazy liquor store. That doesn't mean the store is trustworthy or reliable. If I had an item that I had to make sure go to the store clerk, I need to know that I'm in the store. I do not care how reliable or trustworthy it is if I just want to make sure I give the item to the clerk.
If you think the padlock on an HTTPS site means you can trust the site itself, you're very, very mistaken! It only means that when you type your credit card information on the site, only they will be able to see it. It doesn't mean they won't post it in a public location or use it to rack up charges on your account. It means the communications channel is secure. That the communication is secure is reliable and trustworthy. Understand the difference?
Verification is an issue for those that do check URLs. And verification is already free with certs from StartSSL.
There isn't any objection to self-signed certificates. It's just that when a browser encounters one, it cannot tell whether that's a legitimate certificate or one from an impostor attempting a man-in-the-middle attack. That's why the browser throws up a warning -- to warn the user of a potential man-in-the-middle attack. Go ahead and use self-signed certificates. Just don't expect a browser to accept it without warning the user, because then the browser wouldn't protect against a MITM attack.
I was referring to "Break up the concepts of verification and encryption." Do that and you get encrypted communication with... someone. That isn't secure.
But then it wouldn't be protecting against man-in-the-middle attacks, just as a computer that let you type in any password wouldn't protect against intruders.