In defense of the Mythbuster's they often remote control the cars in the first place because they plan to destroy them or at least to put them at serious risk of destruction. That is not something for economic reasons you generally want to do with new cars. So they tend to be using cars that are around 10 years old which do not have these electronic systems, to utilize.
um no Nancy Pelosi was the House Speaker with a Democratic majority. You are the one trying to rewrite history.
Also just because one nominally right wing organization suggested something similar 25 yeas ago does not mean they were right to suggest it then or that is a right-wing issue today.
Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.
Progressives need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything.
I for instance would like to not have to buy coverage for services I will never need. I have a perfectly good catastrophic coverage plan that would have covered any costs if I was injured and needed an ER, got a serious diagnosis etc. So I was never a risk for defaulting and burdening others with my costs. As a healthy person I don't need drug coverage etc. I should not have to pay for it. I should pay my own way and no more, and never expect others to carry me.
Just like I should never have to subsides others either. So now my plan is gone, I'd have to pay more than four times the amount for a bronze plans that does all sorts stuff I won't use to subsides others. Sorry no fucking thank you. I have voluntarily gone uninsured because, the penalties are cheaper and I can always buy a plan for the first time after I have a condition. Of course now a catastrophic event might bankrupt me leaving everyone else to pay the costs; something I would have previously felt bad about but now, I see it as hey society tried to pick my pocket first; so screw'em.
So health insurance should not cover pre-natal care for pregnant women? Colonoscopies for middle-aged men?
No something being sold as insurance SHOULD NOT COVER either of those things. It might however offer discounts to people who chose to engage in those activities and services if they believe a their risk of having to pay a claim goes down actuarially speaking for people who do them. Just like home owners offers discounts if you install dead bolt locks, and car insurance does for years of having a clean driving record.
I would go further than that, freedom of associate must necessarily imply freedom from association or its meaningless. Nobody should have to hire anyone or be barred from refusing to do so for any reason however stupid it may be; at least in so far as the government is concerned.
Now if company X actually adopts a policy of refusing to hire gingers or something than I am totally okay with the rest of my fellow citizens boycotting them, protesting out in front of their headquarters or whatever, but government should do nothing.
Basically all the civil rights legislation that has passed is fundamentally anti freedom though and should be in my interpretation of the first amendment UN-Constitutional
Oh you mean after once side they used a bunch parliamentary tricks to limit debate, ultimately abusing budget reconciliation to prevent amendments to the bill, that democratic process?
Face it the leftists did everything they possibly could within the rules to ram the thing thru because that was the only way it was getting through. They completely violated the spirit of how the legislature has traditionally worked and was intended to work; so they could oppress the minority.
Now they cry cordial triers whenever the other side uses the same dirity pool to try and tie stuff to the debt ceiling or the budget. Anyone who voted for the ACA ( at least in the House ) and now complains or accuses the other side of hostage taking etc on these budget issues is a fucking hypocrite; as is anyone else who supports it remaining enforce given how it was done.
Basically anything that successful undermines this crock of shit legislation in anyway is a victory for the concept of minority rights with majority rule. Anytime Obama wins on this issue is just Tyranny of the majority.
I don't know if by censor you mean make some redacted version of the work available or make the entire work unavailable.
If its the latter I am not sure I agree with you but many will. On the whole there is not bright line for what is vulgar, what is culture, and what is appropriate for a given age reader but people have been searching for one almost as long as people have been writing books and its a moving target. I would argue that parents, relatives, and nannies need to spend enough time with their children to know what they are reading and put in the correct context for them. If its not possible for some caring responsible to be in a position to do that than we need to be rethinking other aspects of our society before we worry about who is reading what books.
If its the former than I shutter to think what will happen to you when you take the black market to the Bible, Qu'arn, Upanishads, and just about every other holy book. My guess is angry mobs will descend upon you. If you are going to censor content though you pretty much will have to maul those works because they contain examples of just about everything anyone anywhere has thought might be inappropriate to write about.
No I don't think we need to go out of our way to stock school libraries with whatever it is people find 'edgy' this decade but I also don't think we ought to worry much about it either. Why? Because: We ought to consider that there is no safer way than a book where a young person can get exposure to some of these edgy and more radical ideas, let alone feelings and thoughts around 'adult' activities.
They are going to hear about or see this stuff happening somewhere sometime whatever it is, drugs, sex, explosives, other religions, and they will be curious. Much of that curiosity might very well be satisfied by just reading about it and at least there the worst that can happen to your delicate little snowflake is probably a paper cut.
Sure, but the requirements storage I use while I am actively working on the content vs the storage I use to drop in a FedEx envelope and send to the customer are very different.
Incidently the customer likely works in a PC only shop and does not even have a thunderbolt connector.
SATA is a ubiquitous and cheap. Now before you reply people using Mac Pro's should not care consider all the multimedia production people that are still sneakerneting assets around to each other and back and forth with clients.
Cheap external SATA disks are great for that, and its not as much to cry about when something terrible happens to one.
If you are going to store the passwords in an encrypted format you need to have the key somewhere the user who owns the wifi passwords can read to decrypt them. In which case someone who has root can read the key and use it to decrypt the passwords.
You might make the key something like the users password itself, but that has implications too like what happens when the user changes their password. What happens if an alternative password change protocol has to be used because the user forgot their password and the sysadmin must do it? Does the user lose all the stored wireless passwords?
Generally speaking there isn't much in the way of something you know based schemes that will protect user data from the system administrator and provide single sign on. If you want to have some second password or token that acts as a cipher key for a password wallet that is one thing but there is a usability cost there, the use now has two passwords and if the wallet password is lost the data is probably lost.
Otherwise its a situation of root can read everyones files, which we knew, or some obfuscation that probably is more a false sense of security than anything. So pretty much the whole complaint is FUD.
There was a social contract your Obama support ilk changed the rules and just expect the rest of use to go along with your tyrannical theft of the freedom we thought we had. Its you people that should get the hell out, go build your workers paradise somewhere else; write back with how well it works out for you.
INAL but I think that might be foolish. He has to show harm in a civil suit like that. As it is documented he was going to be terminated the following day anyway the harm is only going to be whatever severance he might have been otherwise getting and a day's wages, possibly an agreement to provide a good reference which he might just as easily arrange with they sympathetic store manager himself.
He might come out ahead if he also gets awarded legal fees, but risks having to pay his attorneys retainer if he does not prevail. There is also the risk it could provoke some kind of libel counter suit which while unlikely to succeed IMHO, there were some disparaging remarks about management in the video and winding up before judge without a sense of humor or proportion could ruin his life.
No better to chat up his GM and say "hey, I am not going to make a big thing of this and just go quietly. I know what I did might be considered by some in appropriate ( conciliatory bs but whatever ), but I think understandable given the circumstances. Can I have your personal contact number and count on your for a positive reference?"
That is probably the best thing he can get out of this, in the risk/reward sense.
Suspended isn't fired or is it for the purposes of being eligible for unemployment?
Is this just a one day's pay slap on the wrist or is it costing this guy big? Is just HR silliness or is a nasty grab at avoiding one more headcount on their unemployment experience tax figures?
Even in the computer science sense the article is using random correctly. It's arguing bugs from programming errors are NOT randomly distributed through the code base but cluster around code that does certain implementation tasks.
There article is IMHO vapid, but does use it's vocabulary correctly.
Special tools being a plasma cutter to weaken the base of the steel tower, and an old pickup with a brick on the accelerator, to run into the thing once you are done compromising the base. Knocking stuff down ain't that hard, if you are the least bit determined.
I mostly agree with what you have to say but I would offer a couple reasons for their priorities.
first: A plant may contain dangerous materials which under the right conditions such as if someone successfully disabled the cooling at nuclear facility cause damage to the surrounding region, ditto for a hydro electric plan where disabling operation of the spill ways in some manor, ie make it impossible to close them or open them further could result in floods.
second: Damage done to a plant may be costly and time consuming to fix potentially disrupting regional electrical delivery for a long period of time. It would on the other hand be difficult to damage enough distribution lines that the time scale for repairs ( under concerted multi utility possibly federally assisted effort ) would be measured in something other than days. Although I understand the lead time on some of those large transformers can be substantial.
Wow such stunning lack of vision. You and a bunch of other people latched on to this network transparency is to pricey a feature conception back in the late 90's and just can't let it go.
Let me clue you in. In Computing everything that is old is new again. We move back and fourth between centralization and decentralization. The current direction of things is toward centralization again. Just listen to people who keep saying cloud, PC over IP, and visualization. Then consider all the tablet and not quite designed to be a standalone machine hardware/software stacks being sold.
Windows got a leg up from being on the right spot of the curve at the right time. They built a comparatively simple localized talk directly to the hardware display solution during the decentralization trend. That served very well in the late 90's and early 2000's when everyone was focused on doing CAD and playing video games on their desktops. The hardware has gotten faster and the work around hacked into X.org have allowed it to mostly keep up though. Now the fact is the X.org model is broken too, modern toolkits are not using the drawing primatives and spend most of their time doing what amounts to pushing bitmaps around which does not offer really great network transparency. X.org needs a major rework; X11 was a solution for a slightly different set of problems than we have today, but just because it might not be the right specific solution now, does not be something else automatically is or that the fundamental concepts behind X are wrong.
Network transparency is NOT a misfeature and its NOT a niche use case.
Citrix and others are falling all over themselves right now trying to figure out how to export a rich application experiences from Microsoft's shitty non network transparent desktop and server platform backed by powerful hardware to Apple, and Microsoft's shitty tablet platforms. Xenprise is all about application network transparency; because people can't/don't want to try and deal with local storage and computation on their tablets.
If you want the UNIX/Linux world to enjoy the sort of success Windows did in the 95-2005 years its about catering to the centralization, decentralization cycle and having a modern ( ie not X11, but maybe an X12) display solution that is hardware independent, portable, and network transparent absolutely is the thing to do. Plan for 2015 - 2025 rather than trying to implement the ideas and compromises of 1995. Wayland and Mir are backward looking.
I agree the "gold bugs" are a little misguided. Gold if you use it as a wealth store at all is purely about playing a 'long game' that is it almost always recovers its original value at some point if you hold it long enough. You would have to exchange pretty close to the same number of oz in gold for the cash required to get a similar quality house built in 1813 as you would in 2013.
If you have amassed a great fortune you want to preserve across generations gold might be a workable way to do it. It might even work fairly well if you plan to buy before a panic and don't expect to sell until 10 or 15 years later when the recovery is complete.
The notion that having gold is going to anything for you during mass panic is silly. Because you right nobody is going to trade something useful like food or transportation for a mostly inert metal.
Laws and tax levels should be things that are mostly agreeable to everyone. People mostly are decent unless they become to powerful. Most people want to pay their 'fair' share and follow the rules. Its when the rules become to onerous you get more misbehavior, which in turn begets more misbehavior as people get more used to flaunting the law.
On the other hand when you make governments ability to enforce so effective breaking the rules becomes impossible, you take away the incentive to keep the rules reasonable for all. It how you get abusive shit like the war one drugs.
IPSec *can* tunnel but does not require a tunnel, I don't disagree isolation would be better but most of the time that isolation ends at the next hop router anyway. It isn't as if a retail box store is going to have a layer2 network back to HQ.
If you have some port security in place like 802.1x so you can have some at least low level of assurance that the only things on the network are supposed to be there, there isn't nearly as much value in isolation in this type of situation.
Frankly tunneled IPSec is weaker than what I am proposing, it only would authenticate the tunnel endpoints to each other, transport mode would allow the server and the swipe machines to mutually authenticate every session. If you just put them on a vlan and route the address range into an IPSec tunnel or other VPN than anyone who can get access to the network on either side can talk to the swipe machines or the server end and start banging away at the application layer for vulns. If the ip stack on the other hand is configured to just drop any packet without a valid ah header that is going to be much much harder.
You also need to consider the question of scale. If you tried to have our current population live as the native Americans did we would have considerable environmental problems. Pollution from human waste, deforestation, constant high levels of fine particulate from open fires used for heat and cooking, we'd be hunting many species to extinction etc. What is Eco-friendly for a few hundred thousand and what works for a few million is quite different.
Iook and places like India and Hati if you don't think so. On the subject of China and also the modernizing parts of India it's also a question of scale. There may be a technical and moral equivelance and usually even a deficit compared to our consumption but there are so so many more people there that there isn't a practical equivalence.
Slashdot Mirror
In defense of the Mythbuster's they often remote control the cars in the first place because they plan to destroy them or at least to put them at serious risk of destruction. That is not something for economic reasons you generally want to do with new cars. So they tend to be using cars that are around 10 years old which do not have these electronic systems, to utilize.
um no Nancy Pelosi was the House Speaker with a Democratic majority. You are the one trying to rewrite history.
Also just because one nominally right wing organization suggested something similar 25 yeas ago does not mean they were right to suggest it then or that is a right-wing issue today.
Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.
Progressives need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything.
I for instance would like to not have to buy coverage for services I will never need. I have a perfectly good catastrophic coverage plan that would have covered any costs if I was injured and needed an ER, got a serious diagnosis etc. So I was never a risk for defaulting and burdening others with my costs. As a healthy person I don't need drug coverage etc. I should not have to pay for it. I should pay my own way and no more, and never expect others to carry me.
Just like I should never have to subsides others either. So now my plan is gone, I'd have to pay more than four times the amount for a bronze plans that does all sorts stuff I won't use to subsides others. Sorry no fucking thank you. I have voluntarily gone uninsured because, the penalties are cheaper and I can always buy a plan for the first time after I have a condition. Of course now a catastrophic event might bankrupt me leaving everyone else to pay the costs; something I would have previously felt bad about but now, I see it as hey society tried to pick my pocket first; so screw'em.
So health insurance should not cover pre-natal care for pregnant women? Colonoscopies for middle-aged men?
No something being sold as insurance SHOULD NOT COVER either of those things. It might however offer discounts to people who chose to engage in those activities and services if they believe a their risk of having to pay a claim goes down actuarially speaking for people who do them. Just like home owners offers discounts if you install dead bolt locks, and car insurance does for years of having a clean driving record.
I would go further than that, freedom of associate must necessarily imply freedom from association or its meaningless. Nobody should have to hire anyone or be barred from refusing to do so for any reason however stupid it may be; at least in so far as the government is concerned.
Now if company X actually adopts a policy of refusing to hire gingers or something than I am totally okay with the rest of my fellow citizens boycotting them, protesting out in front of their headquarters or whatever, but government should do nothing.
Basically all the civil rights legislation that has passed is fundamentally anti freedom though and should be in my interpretation of the first amendment UN-Constitutional
Oh you mean after once side they used a bunch parliamentary tricks to limit debate, ultimately abusing budget reconciliation to prevent amendments to the bill, that democratic process?
Face it the leftists did everything they possibly could within the rules to ram the thing thru because that was the only way it was getting through. They completely violated the spirit of how the legislature has traditionally worked and was intended to work; so they could oppress the minority.
Now they cry cordial triers whenever the other side uses the same dirity pool to try and tie stuff to the debt ceiling or the budget. Anyone who voted for the ACA ( at least in the House ) and now complains or accuses the other side of hostage taking etc on these budget issues is a fucking hypocrite; as is anyone else who supports it remaining enforce given how it was done.
Basically anything that successful undermines this crock of shit legislation in anyway is a victory for the concept of minority rights with majority rule. Anytime Obama wins on this issue is just Tyranny of the majority.
I don't know if by censor you mean make some redacted version of the work available or make the entire work unavailable.
If its the latter I am not sure I agree with you but many will. On the whole there is not bright line for what is vulgar, what is culture, and what is appropriate for a given age reader but people have been searching for one almost as long as people have been writing books and its a moving target. I would argue that parents, relatives, and nannies need to spend enough time with their children to know what they are reading and put in the correct context for them. If its not possible for some caring responsible to be in a position to do that than we need to be rethinking other aspects of our society before we worry about who is reading what books.
If its the former than I shutter to think what will happen to you when you take the black market to the Bible, Qu'arn, Upanishads, and just about every other holy book. My guess is angry mobs will descend upon you. If you are going to censor content though you pretty much will have to maul those works because they contain examples of just about everything anyone anywhere has thought might be inappropriate to write about.
No I don't think we need to go out of our way to stock school libraries with whatever it is people find 'edgy' this decade but I also don't think we ought to worry much about it either. Why? Because: We ought to consider that there is no safer way than a book where a young person can get exposure to some of these edgy and more radical ideas, let alone feelings and thoughts around 'adult' activities.
They are going to hear about or see this stuff happening somewhere sometime whatever it is, drugs, sex, explosives, other religions, and they will be curious. Much of that curiosity might very well be satisfied by just reading about it and at least there the worst that can happen to your delicate little snowflake is probably a paper cut.
Sure, but the requirements storage I use while I am actively working on the content vs the storage I use to drop in a FedEx envelope and send to the customer are very different.
Incidently the customer likely works in a PC only shop and does not even have a thunderbolt connector.
SATA is a ubiquitous and cheap. Now before you reply people using Mac Pro's should not care consider all the multimedia production people that are still sneakerneting assets around to each other and back and forth with clients.
Cheap external SATA disks are great for that, and its not as much to cry about when something terrible happens to one.
I does even if you do encrypt them. Think!
If you are going to store the passwords in an encrypted format you need to have the key somewhere the user who owns the wifi passwords can read to decrypt them. In which case someone who has root can read the key and use it to decrypt the passwords.
You might make the key something like the users password itself, but that has implications too like what happens when the user changes their password. What happens if an alternative password change protocol has to be used because the user forgot their password and the sysadmin must do it? Does the user lose all the stored wireless passwords?
Generally speaking there isn't much in the way of something you know based schemes that will protect user data from the system administrator and provide single sign on. If you want to have some second password or token that acts as a cipher key for a password wallet that is one thing but there is a usability cost there, the use now has two passwords and if the wallet password is lost the data is probably lost.
Otherwise its a situation of root can read everyones files, which we knew, or some obfuscation that probably is more a false sense of security than anything. So pretty much the whole complaint is FUD.
There was a social contract your Obama support ilk changed the rules and just expect the rest of use to go along with your tyrannical theft of the freedom we thought we had. Its you people that should get the hell out, go build your workers paradise somewhere else; write back with how well it works out for you.
Right,
One of life's little lessons. Always wait until the last check clears before you tell people what you really think.
INAL but I think that might be foolish. He has to show harm in a civil suit like that. As it is documented he was going to be terminated the following day anyway the harm is only going to be whatever severance he might have been otherwise getting and a day's wages, possibly an agreement to provide a good reference which he might just as easily arrange with they sympathetic store manager himself.
He might come out ahead if he also gets awarded legal fees, but risks having to pay his attorneys retainer if he does not prevail. There is also the risk it could provoke some kind of libel counter suit which while unlikely to succeed IMHO, there were some disparaging remarks about management in the video and winding up before judge without a sense of humor or proportion could ruin his life.
No better to chat up his GM and say "hey, I am not going to make a big thing of this and just go quietly. I know what I did might be considered by some in appropriate ( conciliatory bs but whatever ), but I think understandable given the circumstances. Can I have your personal contact number and count on your for a positive reference?"
That is probably the best thing he can get out of this, in the risk/reward sense.
Suspended isn't fired or is it for the purposes of being eligible for unemployment?
Is this just a one day's pay slap on the wrist or is it costing this guy big? Is just HR silliness or is a nasty grab at avoiding one more headcount on their unemployment experience tax figures?
Even in the computer science sense the article is using random correctly. It's arguing bugs from programming errors are NOT randomly distributed through the code base but cluster around code that does certain implementation tasks.
There article is IMHO vapid, but does use it's vocabulary correctly.
Yea and Ice breaker should do one thing and do it well oh and be a file.
Special tools being a plasma cutter to weaken the base of the steel tower, and an old pickup with a brick on the accelerator, to run into the thing once you are done compromising the base. Knocking stuff down ain't that hard, if you are the least bit determined.
I mostly agree with what you have to say but I would offer a couple reasons for their priorities.
first:
A plant may contain dangerous materials which under the right conditions such as if someone successfully disabled the cooling at nuclear facility cause damage to the surrounding region, ditto for a hydro electric plan where disabling operation of the spill ways in some manor, ie make it impossible to close them or open them further could result in floods.
second: Damage done to a plant may be costly and time consuming to fix potentially disrupting regional electrical delivery for a long period of time. It would on the other hand be difficult to damage enough distribution lines that the time scale for repairs ( under concerted multi utility possibly federally assisted effort ) would be measured in something other than days. Although I understand the lead time on some of those large transformers can be substantial.
Wow such stunning lack of vision. You and a bunch of other people latched on to this network transparency is to pricey a feature conception back in the late 90's and just can't let it go.
Let me clue you in. In Computing everything that is old is new again. We move back and fourth between centralization and decentralization. The current direction of things is toward centralization again. Just listen to people who keep saying cloud, PC over IP, and visualization. Then consider all the tablet and not quite designed to be a standalone machine hardware/software stacks being sold.
Windows got a leg up from being on the right spot of the curve at the right time. They built a comparatively simple localized talk directly to the hardware display solution during the decentralization trend. That served very well in the late 90's and early 2000's when everyone was focused on doing CAD and playing video games on their desktops. The hardware has gotten faster and the work around hacked into X.org have allowed it to mostly keep up though. Now the fact is the X.org model is broken too, modern toolkits are not using the drawing primatives and spend most of their time doing what amounts to pushing bitmaps around which does not offer really great network transparency. X.org needs a major rework; X11 was a solution for a slightly different set of problems than we have today, but just because it might not be the right specific solution now, does not be something else automatically is or that the fundamental concepts behind X are wrong.
Network transparency is NOT a misfeature and its NOT a niche use case.
Citrix and others are falling all over themselves right now trying to figure out how to export a rich application experiences from Microsoft's shitty non network transparent desktop and server platform backed by powerful hardware to Apple, and Microsoft's shitty tablet platforms. Xenprise is all about application network transparency; because people can't/don't want to try and deal with local storage and computation on their tablets.
If you want the UNIX/Linux world to enjoy the sort of success Windows did in the 95-2005 years its about catering to the centralization, decentralization cycle and having a modern ( ie not X11, but maybe an X12) display solution that is hardware independent, portable, and network transparent absolutely is the thing to do. Plan for 2015 - 2025 rather than trying to implement the ideas and compromises of 1995. Wayland and Mir are backward looking.
What do your children think of this viewpoint?
I agree the "gold bugs" are a little misguided. Gold if you use it as a wealth store at all is purely about playing a 'long game' that is it almost always recovers its original value at some point if you hold it long enough. You would have to exchange pretty close to the same number of oz in gold for the cash required to get a similar quality house built in 1813 as you would in 2013.
If you have amassed a great fortune you want to preserve across generations gold might be a workable way to do it. It might even work fairly well if you plan to buy before a panic and don't expect to sell until 10 or 15 years later when the recovery is complete.
The notion that having gold is going to anything for you during mass panic is silly. Because you right nobody is going to trade something useful like food or transportation for a mostly inert metal.
Well I want Charles Storss to die in fire!
Laws and tax levels should be things that are mostly agreeable to everyone. People mostly are decent unless they become to powerful. Most people want to pay their 'fair' share and follow the rules. Its when the rules become to onerous you get more misbehavior, which in turn begets more misbehavior as people get more used to flaunting the law.
On the other hand when you make governments ability to enforce so effective breaking the rules becomes impossible, you take away the incentive to keep the rules reasonable for all. It how you get abusive shit like the war one drugs.
IPSec *can* tunnel but does not require a tunnel, I don't disagree isolation would be better but most of the time that isolation ends at the next hop router anyway. It isn't as if a retail box store is going to have a layer2 network back to HQ.
If you have some port security in place like 802.1x so you can have some at least low level of assurance that the only things on the network are supposed to be there, there isn't nearly as much value in isolation in this type of situation.
Frankly tunneled IPSec is weaker than what I am proposing, it only would authenticate the tunnel endpoints to each other, transport mode would allow the server and the swipe machines to mutually authenticate every session. If you just put them on a vlan and route the address range into an IPSec tunnel or other VPN than anyone who can get access to the network on either side can talk to the swipe machines or the server end and start banging away at the application layer for vulns. If the ip stack on the other hand is configured to just drop any packet without a valid ah header that is going to be much much harder.
IPSec would not require a tunnel and should be perfectly safe as well. That has the advantage of not requiring any separate routing, vlans, etc.
Honestly if you are building an IP based CC scanning device why you'd support anything other than IPSec I don't know.
You also need to consider the question of scale. If you tried to have our current population live as the native Americans did we would have considerable environmental problems. Pollution from human waste, deforestation, constant high levels of fine particulate from open fires used for heat and cooking, we'd be hunting many species to extinction etc. What is Eco-friendly for a few hundred thousand and what works for a few million is quite different.
Iook and places like India and Hati if you don't think so. On the subject of China and also the modernizing parts of India it's also a question of scale. There may be a technical and moral equivelance and usually even a deficit compared to our consumption but there are so so many more people there that there isn't a practical equivalence.