Not sure that would be an issue. Magma is pretty dense, so it's not like a huge chunk of rock would just displace into it in the same way as if it were water. Depending on the density of the rock above, it might even float on the magma.
It's also pretty close to the surface (obviously) so there isn't (apparently) enough weight on it to produce the pressure needed to remove some of that magma and create a void for the land to fall into.
It also appears to be self-sealing, which is also good for safety.
For a hellish molten holocaust waiting to happen, it seems pretty benign.
Yea, and unions are going to stop offshoring...How exactly?
If I could come up with one thing that would drive offshoring, it would be unions. Might stop H1Bs, but at least H1B's come HERE to work. Accelerate offshoring, and they don't have to come here anymore.
Pensions and health insurance both work better when more people are paying into the system. The problem with "private", which I'm using to mean "private sector" which includes corporate pensions, is that when a corporate workforce shrinks, they run into pension/healthcare problems because of their retired employees.
If they're government run, however, that problem only crops up during population contractions, and that can be better planned for.
Mismanagement is, as you say, a problem with all systems.
I love how the pro-union stance is always how we poor, benighted IT workers are just too stupid to know how good we could have it if only we signed away our future and a chunk of our paycheck to some self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating entity that is out for itself and its own power first and foremost.
There is a reason highly trained, highly skilled workers don't tend to unionize. It's because we're hard to replace, and relatively highly paid. I may not make a mint, but I'm in the top 10% of employees in my business unit; I'm paid more than most managers. I don't get overtime, but no one complains when I take a 2 hour lunch, or work a 6 hour day.
You can hold out for a pension until hell freezes over; private pensions are a thing of the past, because all modern industries can see what they did to the steel, airline, and auto industries. Frankly, private health insurance ought to go the same way.
Wow, how condescending. You played the class card, the race card, and an ad hominem in a mere two paragraphs. Well I don't buy that tripe, because of its unreasonable illogic.
I guess I'm just too stupid to know how much better my life would be if I was in a industry where I'm forced to join the union just to get in the door, forced to pay the dues, and then forced out of work when the industry fails.
I'm on the liberal side, and I think laws promoting unions are vile. Especially for highly skilled workers. Don't we lose tech jobs fast enough? If you can't convince someone to hire you, maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
The reason it doesn't work in tech is because tech work is utterly portable. You want to strike at your local auto plant, the plant owner can't just pick up and move without incurring massive costs. You've got leverage.
Tech work? Not so much. You could ship it overseas with a trivial outlay of hardware.
The place where unions fall apart is in their assaults on non-union workers. If your union is this great thing, then those people should join you automatically. If it's not then your actions against those people are just as oppressive as the big capitalist.
It's ridiculous. It's like having two job interviews instead of one, two bosses instead of one.
See, I'm hugely in favor of competition. The problem is the competition in this case is restricted by an artificial shortage of pipe. You're not buying pipe, you're buying data throughput, but they're sort of artificially merged because right now you can only buy data throughput from the people who own the pipe.
A few years ago there were laws that affected only the phone companies that restricted the amount that they could charge competitors to lease space on their lines. That meant small ISPs didn't have to own the physical lines between themselves and their customers, and they could offer better services (e.g static ip addresses, better bandwidth, more open ports) than the guys who owned the lines. This is no longer the case.
But by turning the lines into a piece of public infrastructure, no different from roads, you allow competition based on offered services rather than on who owns the actual infrastructure, so prices come down, more services are offered, and you can actually have competition within the local market.
The non-free-market piece, is, of course, that local governments could choose to wire areas that a private company couldn't cost justify. In my area, a little unincorporated town near here couldn't get AT&T (then Bellsouth) to wire their area for broadband, and couldn't interest a cable company either. So they took out bonds, did the wire themselves, and now they have better internet and cable than the nearby major metropolitan areas. They've been dropping rates lately, as the bonds have been paid off.
Actually, I get my water from a private company, so I understand what you mean. And wells and septic tanks are a fringe case, so they don't invalidate the point.
I'm not arguing personal self sufficiency in terms of internet, I'm arguing that local informational infrastructure, local, not national, is often more efficient when treated the same as roads, water pipes, gas lines, etc. As it is now, you have an essentially national entity who has no particular stake in a local community deciding how that community is best served.
Once that local pipe is in place, you could easily have your choice of providers based out of some local datacenter, all of whom would be competing on an essentially even field, without being able to lock competitors out of the lines, or simply force local competitors to use their service by virtue of being the only game in town.
So the government owned water and sewer pipes that serve your house are a bad thing? You want to see multiple competing water and sewer companies building multiple competing water and sewage treatment systems, and multiple and competing reservoirs, etc? How about competing highway infrastructure? No?
Or maybe you prefer the current system, where one company is granted a monopoly in exchange for shouldering the infrastructure cost?
If we own the infrastructure, we can actually HAVE competition based on service. We sure as hell can't have it when the telecoms own all the pipe.
The reason the government wasn't into buying the pneumatic tube system is because there was no real standard and no guarantee the system would be worth installing anywhere else. I can't see how anyone who researched it at the time would come to any conclusion but that the last thing the government needed was to be saddled with an expensive, hard to maintain, experimental system...Especially given that they already had the postal service.
The modern situation is a bit different. Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea. Small towns who can't interest the big telecoms in investing have bought bonds and done it themselves with good results, and it really opens the door to local competition since the competition is based around providing actual service...not around providing infrastructure. The technology is also standardized, and much more mature.
Telecoms are getting too uppity these days. Some kind of smackdown is required.
Step 1: Sell discs. Step 2: Pay lawmakers to make it illegal to copy discs. Step 3: Make a machine that damages discs, forcing users to buy replacement discs. Step 4: Profit!
Fricking seedy. If I'm buying the media, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. If I'm buying the data, they should replace the media for free. They can't have it both ways.
The tilde is a good choice in English; in logic the tilde is a common symbol for negation, and since sarcasm is basically negation, that makes sense.
Likewise the upside down question mark (whose proper name is "signo de apertura de interrogacion invertido" which, yes, means "Upside down question mark" in Spanish) would be a poor choice in Spanish, since it's already used to indicate the beginning of a question.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that the mark will just end up being another idiom to confuse people, and is unlikely to ever replace good old [sarcasm] tags.
Studies also found that old people who do not have dementia are likely to whack you with their canes for sassing them.
Doctor: "Oh, yeaaaa, you're normal" Patient: "Why you little whippernapper! *WHACK* *WHACK*" Doctor: "No! Ow! No! It was a medical test! Patient: "I lived through 15 wars and 5 depressions, and I'm not going to let some damn young quack backtalk me in the name of science!" *WHACK* *WHACK*
Cyberspace? I think if you want a comprehensive strategy you need to get a way from words that make you seem like a "series of tubes" style neo-luddite.
Lets move through the executive summary:
Reinvent the public private partnership: Mmmmmm, pork.
Regulate cyberspace: So you want to regulate it without telling anyone what to do. That should work.
Authenticate Digital Identities: So, you want crypto for everyone, is that what you're saying? After that you're going to have to have some form of universal id/biometrics to keep those secure crypto identities from being stolen. And that won't actually work.
Modernize authorities: The secret is realizing that just because a traditional crime is happening online, it doesn't make it a new crime. Once you take that step it's shocking how few new laws are actually needed.
Use acquisitions policy to improve security: More pork. Seriously are people buying stuff that they know is insecure? (Not counting windows obviously.) You should be pouring money into open source development, and not shutting down things like the NSA's security enhanced linux program just because it's not putting money into the coffers of the big campaign contributors.
Build capabilities: Nice and safe, that one.
Do not start over: I'd argue that there hasn't even been a real start at this point on any of the above points, so that shouldn't be hard.
This just doesn't even seem serious to me. You need to get people who know vaguely what they're talking about, set up a secure, interoperative, interconnected network for the government. And if you manage to achieve that goal, then you can start trying to rearrange the rest of the world. But get your own house in order first.
The problem is, they spend so much time trying to get it to interface with the nerves in the same way as the original limb. Ideally, sure, we'd like it to go that way. But that's a long way off.
If they could just get it to read some signals, any signals, the methods for controlling it could be learned by the recipient.
Humans are born with the capability of mastering our limbs; fine motor coordination isn't something we're born with, it's learned. Why try to write software to do that?
This has been done in many places, and doesn't require any weird tax schemes. It's the same as any other utility cooperative. You raise the money, lay the infrastructure, then use the fees generated to maintain the system.
I'm not against IP6, but I wrote all my IP4 stuff years ago, so it's not an either or thing, it's a "I've already got this and it works so..." thing.
I fully expect to be on IP6 in the next 5 to 10 years, and the switchover will affect me at home practically not at all, but it'll kill me at work with all the proprietary horseshit we have deployed. Lot of people are going to drag their feet.
It has to do with how many directly accessible external addresses there is an actual demand for at the current time, which is very relevant. Right now we have more than enough addresses to meet the demand, assuming we stop being so liberal with their distribution.
I'm not anti-ip6, but I don't see a need to force an early migration to try and address an imaginary shortage.
We're talking corporations here, but I'll bite. I use bitorrent at home through a NAT. Works fine. I have a static IP, but the machine that has that IP isn't the machine I use for bittorrent.
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure that would be an issue. Magma is pretty dense, so it's not like a huge chunk of rock would just displace into it in the same way as if it were water. Depending on the density of the rock above, it might even float on the magma.
It's also pretty close to the surface (obviously) so there isn't (apparently) enough weight on it to produce the pressure needed to remove some of that magma and create a void for the land to fall into.
It also appears to be self-sealing, which is also good for safety.
For a hellish molten holocaust waiting to happen, it seems pretty benign.
Yea, but if they could do it with Windows, now that would be a challenge!
Yea, and unions are going to stop offshoring...How exactly?
If I could come up with one thing that would drive offshoring, it would be unions. Might stop H1Bs, but at least H1B's come HERE to work. Accelerate offshoring, and they don't have to come here anymore.
Pensions and health insurance both work better when more people are paying into the system. The problem with "private", which I'm using to mean "private sector" which includes corporate pensions, is that when a corporate workforce shrinks, they run into pension/healthcare problems because of their retired employees.
If they're government run, however, that problem only crops up during population contractions, and that can be better planned for.
Mismanagement is, as you say, a problem with all systems.
If you can't be replaced, you don't need a union in the first place.
I love how the pro-union stance is always how we poor, benighted IT workers are just too stupid to know how good we could have it if only we signed away our future and a chunk of our paycheck to some self-aggrandizing, self-perpetuating entity that is out for itself and its own power first and foremost.
There is a reason highly trained, highly skilled workers don't tend to unionize. It's because we're hard to replace, and relatively highly paid. I may not make a mint, but I'm in the top 10% of employees in my business unit; I'm paid more than most managers. I don't get overtime, but no one complains when I take a 2 hour lunch, or work a 6 hour day.
You can hold out for a pension until hell freezes over; private pensions are a thing of the past, because all modern industries can see what they did to the steel, airline, and auto industries. Frankly, private health insurance ought to go the same way.
Wow, how condescending. You played the class card, the race card, and an ad hominem in a mere two paragraphs. Well I don't buy that tripe, because of its unreasonable illogic.
I guess I'm just too stupid to know how much better my life would be if I was in a industry where I'm forced to join the union just to get in the door, forced to pay the dues, and then forced out of work when the industry fails.
I'm on the liberal side, and I think laws promoting unions are vile. Especially for highly skilled workers. Don't we lose tech jobs fast enough? If you can't convince someone to hire you, maybe you're in the wrong line of work.
Crap.
The reason it doesn't work in tech is because tech work is utterly portable. You want to strike at your local auto plant, the plant owner can't just pick up and move without incurring massive costs. You've got leverage.
Tech work? Not so much. You could ship it overseas with a trivial outlay of hardware.
Perhaps? Ask the auto industry what they think.
The place where unions fall apart is in their assaults on non-union workers. If your union is this great thing, then those people should join you automatically. If it's not then your actions against those people are just as oppressive as the big capitalist.
It's ridiculous. It's like having two job interviews instead of one, two bosses instead of one.
See, I'm hugely in favor of competition. The problem is the competition in this case is restricted by an artificial shortage of pipe. You're not buying pipe, you're buying data throughput, but they're sort of artificially merged because right now you can only buy data throughput from the people who own the pipe.
A few years ago there were laws that affected only the phone companies that restricted the amount that they could charge competitors to lease space on their lines. That meant small ISPs didn't have to own the physical lines between themselves and their customers, and they could offer better services (e.g static ip addresses, better bandwidth, more open ports) than the guys who owned the lines. This is no longer the case.
But by turning the lines into a piece of public infrastructure, no different from roads, you allow competition based on offered services rather than on who owns the actual infrastructure, so prices come down, more services are offered, and you can actually have competition within the local market.
The non-free-market piece, is, of course, that local governments could choose to wire areas that a private company couldn't cost justify. In my area, a little unincorporated town near here couldn't get AT&T (then Bellsouth) to wire their area for broadband, and couldn't interest a cable company either. So they took out bonds, did the wire themselves, and now they have better internet and cable than the nearby major metropolitan areas. They've been dropping rates lately, as the bonds have been paid off.
Actually, I get my water from a private company, so I understand what you mean. And wells and septic tanks are a fringe case, so they don't invalidate the point.
I'm not arguing personal self sufficiency in terms of internet, I'm arguing that local informational infrastructure, local, not national, is often more efficient when treated the same as roads, water pipes, gas lines, etc. As it is now, you have an essentially national entity who has no particular stake in a local community deciding how that community is best served.
Once that local pipe is in place, you could easily have your choice of providers based out of some local datacenter, all of whom would be competing on an essentially even field, without being able to lock competitors out of the lines, or simply force local competitors to use their service by virtue of being the only game in town.
So the government owned water and sewer pipes that serve your house are a bad thing? You want to see multiple competing water and sewer companies building multiple competing water and sewage treatment systems, and multiple and competing reservoirs, etc? How about competing highway infrastructure? No?
Or maybe you prefer the current system, where one company is granted a monopoly in exchange for shouldering the infrastructure cost?
If we own the infrastructure, we can actually HAVE competition based on service. We sure as hell can't have it when the telecoms own all the pipe.
Educate yourself.
The reason the government wasn't into buying the pneumatic tube system is because there was no real standard and no guarantee the system would be worth installing anywhere else. I can't see how anyone who researched it at the time would come to any conclusion but that the last thing the government needed was to be saddled with an expensive, hard to maintain, experimental system...Especially given that they already had the postal service.
The modern situation is a bit different. Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea. Small towns who can't interest the big telecoms in investing have bought bonds and done it themselves with good results, and it really opens the door to local competition since the competition is based around providing actual service...not around providing infrastructure. The technology is also standardized, and much more mature.
Telecoms are getting too uppity these days. Some kind of smackdown is required.
Step 1: Sell discs.
Step 2: Pay lawmakers to make it illegal to copy discs.
Step 3: Make a machine that damages discs, forcing users to buy replacement discs.
Step 4: Profit!
Fricking seedy. If I'm buying the media, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it. If I'm buying the data, they should replace the media for free. They can't have it both ways.
The tilde is a good choice in English; in logic the tilde is a common symbol for negation, and since sarcasm is basically negation, that makes sense.
Likewise the upside down question mark (whose proper name is "signo de apertura de interrogacion invertido" which, yes, means "Upside down question mark" in Spanish) would be a poor choice in Spanish, since it's already used to indicate the beginning of a question.
Basically, what I'm getting at is that the mark will just end up being another idiom to confuse people, and is unlikely to ever replace good old [sarcasm] tags.
Studies also found that old people who do not have dementia are likely to whack you with their canes for sassing them.
Doctor: "Oh, yeaaaa, you're normal"
Patient: "Why you little whippernapper! *WHACK* *WHACK*"
Doctor: "No! Ow! No! It was a medical test!
Patient: "I lived through 15 wars and 5 depressions, and I'm not going to let some damn young quack backtalk me in the name of science!" *WHACK* *WHACK*
It's just empty rhetoric. I think that's "cyberspace" actually means...It's like a punctuation mark to indicate a lack of knowledge.
Cyberspace? I think if you want a comprehensive strategy you need to get a way from words that make you seem like a "series of tubes" style neo-luddite.
Lets move through the executive summary:
Reinvent the public private partnership:
Mmmmmm, pork.
Regulate cyberspace:
So you want to regulate it without telling anyone what to do. That should work.
Authenticate Digital Identities:
So, you want crypto for everyone, is that what you're saying? After that you're going to have to have some form of universal id/biometrics to keep those secure crypto identities from being stolen. And that won't actually work.
Modernize authorities:
The secret is realizing that just because a traditional crime is happening online, it doesn't make it a new crime. Once you take that step it's shocking how few new laws are actually needed.
Use acquisitions policy to improve security:
More pork. Seriously are people buying stuff that they know is insecure? (Not counting windows obviously.) You should be pouring money into open source development, and not shutting down things like the NSA's security enhanced linux program just because it's not putting money into the coffers of the big campaign contributors.
Build capabilities:
Nice and safe, that one.
Do not start over:
I'd argue that there hasn't even been a real start at this point on any of the above points, so that shouldn't be hard.
This just doesn't even seem serious to me. You need to get people who know vaguely what they're talking about, set up a secure, interoperative, interconnected network for the government. And if you manage to achieve that goal, then you can start trying to rearrange the rest of the world. But get your own house in order first.
No. They're too big to fail, so they clearly need a bailout.
The problem is, they spend so much time trying to get it to interface with the nerves in the same way as the original limb. Ideally, sure, we'd like it to go that way. But that's a long way off.
If they could just get it to read some signals, any signals, the methods for controlling it could be learned by the recipient.
Humans are born with the capability of mastering our limbs; fine motor coordination isn't something we're born with, it's learned. Why try to write software to do that?
Content doesn't matter. Mass unsolicited mail is spam. It doesn't magically become not spam just because you think it's well written.
This has been done in many places, and doesn't require any weird tax schemes. It's the same as any other utility cooperative. You raise the money, lay the infrastructure, then use the fees generated to maintain the system.
I'm not against IP6, but I wrote all my IP4 stuff years ago, so it's not an either or thing, it's a "I've already got this and it works so..." thing.
I fully expect to be on IP6 in the next 5 to 10 years, and the switchover will affect me at home practically not at all, but it'll kill me at work with all the proprietary horseshit we have deployed. Lot of people are going to drag their feet.
It has to do with how many directly accessible external addresses there is an actual demand for at the current time, which is very relevant. Right now we have more than enough addresses to meet the demand, assuming we stop being so liberal with their distribution.
I'm not anti-ip6, but I don't see a need to force an early migration to try and address an imaginary shortage.
We're talking corporations here, but I'll bite. I use bitorrent at home through a NAT. Works fine. I have a static IP, but the machine that has that IP isn't the machine I use for bittorrent.