Won't happen, this thing will never leave the dock except when clear conditions exist for hundreds of miles, and even then its unlikely to leave harbor except when being transferred to a different harbor.
Well it was designed as a summer home, so that probably was of little consideration. Insulation in a late 40's (before air conditioning was common even for the wealthy) structure not designed to be occupied in winter would not have been much of a factor in energy efficiency or comfort.
- Amusement park rides made by the lowest bidder that kill children years down the line.
This would be a matter of Civil liability. I don't know any Libertarian that is against that. The people who built it can and would be sued into oblivion for negligence, provided it really was negligence determined by a jury of our peers. It would not be in any individual or companies interests to knowing build and operate faulty equipment of such a type.
- Food sourced from China and imported.
I'll grant you there may be some truth in this one. How do you hold someone in China to account? Remember though our government was supposed to be raising almost all its revenue though import tariffs. Taxes were not supposed to be levied on things like Incomes, they were supposed to be on foreign goods. If we used that system today commodity items like food especially (we are an agricultural super power) would almost universally be sourced domestically to avoid the taxes. Using American labor to do the prep works would still be cheaper, the market would solve this problem.
- Internet service providers "adjusting" your connection speed so that you can easily reach websites they're getting kickbacks from (net neutrality stuff).
Actually you'd have much more leverage. Admittedly Internet service might very likely be less available and more expensive. See your contract would specify if you ISP could adjust connection speeds or not and how. You'd have an opportunity to get a favorable contract because you could always threaten the cable co with "adjusting" the rate you charging them rent the sq foot of land their phone poll is occupying on your property. You bet this would lead to sporadic busts of chaos and law suits again; but it systems like this are actually somewhat working in other parts of the world. Which is why you see three different phone polls right next to each other and a rats nest of crisscrossed cables overhead in parts of southern Asia.
You can still do a year or multi-year contract nothing wrong with that. You just make sure you pay for services as they are consumed or performed.
I have had lots of carrier contracts for leased lines and such that I have been responsible. We would do them under 3 and 5 year contracts. There would be penalties if you just backed out, but you paid every month. If the lines just went dead, I would stop paying.
I don't see why a friction free copier support contract should be any different. If its $60k all you can eat per year, I'd insist on paying $5000 and an SLA that gives me an out of the contract if machines are left broken or un supplied for days on end. That would have been the responsible thing to do with the publics money.
I think most of us do realize that. We also the state doing the sorts of things and using the sorts of tools we once thought were unacceptable and certainly are associated with police states of the past and preset.
No our society here in North America (on either side of the Canadian boarder) does not resemble the old Soviet Union or today's China. We also don't want it do, so I think its a good idea to call attention to things that appear to be possible precursors to totalitarian and authoritarianism.
Contracts should go to the lowest bidder who can do the work. Specs should be written completely and independently before jobs are put out to bid. The real problem is that requirements are being written by people with a specific vendor in mind.
The situation you cite sounds like fraud to me. Maybe not but I would say the proprietors should be dragged into court and the state ought try and prove they never intended to be a going concern and always planed to take the money and not provide the services and If they can put'em the slam. At least it would remove the bad actors from our society and discourage others from trying to run such scams
Also the fuckwhit state employees who decided to pay some fly by night for a years services in advance should be fired for miss handling the publics funds. One of the requirements should have been to pay month to month. That way when the company folded up they would have been out at most 30 days cost in the case of a legitimate bankruptcy.
Windows has better file and run-time security than almost any personal operating system in use today, including OS/X and Linux.
Thank you for your post I was waiting for someone to set the record strait. I do take some exception with your final thought though.
The NT Kernel has better file and run time security than pretty much everything else out there. That is true, but in practice its not and has never been used fully. The presentation and application layers of Windows pretty much until failed to expose lots of the features until Server 2003. Even now many of them are not widely used because making much use of them tends to break functionality up the stack.
Yes they are there and you can harden a special purpose windows box to the point where I would strong doubt the best pen tester could get it. On the other hand prior to Windows 7 it impossible to do that to a more general use desktop and have it be usable. It is much much better on Windows 7, Server 2008, and though.
Yes and the worst part is the very argument shows top brass at Microsoft still regard security as a distraction rather than a key design requirement in their products.
That and attempting to duck responsibility for the security situation is a little pathetic too. Yes, the people responsible for crime are the criminals. If someone hacks you trashes you site, steals you trade secrets whatever that cracker is the responsible party. Just like if someone breaks the glass in my window reaches around and opens the lock, they own the breaking and entering. That does not mean however its not a good idea take steps to protect you valuable assets, because we know there are bad actors out there.
The reality is most of us want an operating system where the security controls are effective. Microsoft was forced by the market to 'focus on security' because businesses really were going to start jumping ship for alternatives like Apple desktops and Linux in back office (an in some cases the front office too). If Microsoft had made a correct allocation of resources to security in the first place they would not have to sideline so many other efforts to fill in the deficit later.
I have an ex-pat friend who lives in China, and in fact works for China Telecom. They're not emotionless, but they are worker ants. Look up how many people have died during the construction of, er... any major public works project. Ever. Even the Great Wall of China has bodies buried in it. No, really... sometimes people fell in, and they just poured clay in over them and kept going.
I agree with most of your post but the quote about is a pretty tough stretch. The regime and culture that build the 'Wall' are dust. It has little resemblance with the present. That and its not really uniquely Chinese, behavior. The same is true of the Hover Damn for example and that is much more closely connected with our present.
One thing that gets over looked often about China (especially by China itself as a matter of policy) is they are not and old nation. Even much of their culture was radically ripped and replaced by Mao. Everyone is always pointing out how "young" or nation is but by most practical measures we have been using our present system longer than China.
If there is a global market on the price of oil, why is there not one for labor?
There is a global market for labor, and its a functioning one. The problem is there is not a global market for tax authorities, regulatory environments, cultural norms etc.
H1b is not really the issue either. What H1b has done to some tech heavy industries technology is or will do in the near future anyway. Think about the typical white collar worker? With today's tech is there much of anything they do that a telecommuter could not? Its only getting better as well in that regard. Automation is getting better and cheaper all the time.
If you are in IT perhaps today you still need to wonder in the server room but, pretty soon some robot is going to swap out that blade in the VM rack, just like the tape library does now. As fuel and transit costs continue to rise the only workers that it won't make sense to have telecommuting are at the very top and very very bottom. Hell they are even experimenting with robotic surgery, operating on actual humans!
So we really will soon be to the point where the labor (thinking and creating) mostly can be done from anywhere. Wages will reflect that unless some protectionism is employed.
All this would ordinarily just cause deflation and that would be fine. The trouble even as libertarian I see with the argument that "if American workers want 10x cost of compensation they need to be 10 times as productive"; is that the answer is most of us can't. You bet in my profession I can out perform the typical Indian or Chinese worker but probably not by 10 times. I don't control all of that 10x cost either, lots of it is in taxation, compliance requirements, etc. So I don't really have a choice in that much of is Government taking my choices away. The same goes for my actual compensation requirements. I have to pay real-estate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes that taken all together might be a 100x what some guy on the other side of the world is asked to pay. Then I am barred from just dumping my shit in the streets, burning my trash, and all manor of things. I have to pay to have that stuff done too (Independent of if I personally want to or value that). So no I can't take 50% pay cut.
Yes we do need as a society to do many of these things. We need to tax people so we can run schools and educate or children even the 53% or so of them that happen to be female. No we can't afford (long term) to let people turn the place into a squalid dump. There do need to be some rules. True wealth creation is not a zero sum game but we are not as a species doing it fast enough to elevate all 7B of us out of poverty. (If you come up with solutions there I am happily to reevaluate the rest of my position; it would be wonderful to be able to help everyone)
Wealth has been concentrated in this nation we need to stop exporting it. Trade deficits need to be prevented. Immigration needs to be denied when its not to our clear economic advantage. We need to get our energy situation resolved at least to the point that the economic gains we make importing energy are equal to or greater than the cost. Providing massive amounts of aide that enables these places to function needs to stop, as does the peace umbrella subsidy our massive over seas military deployment offers them. Yes we've got ours. No we should not ever stand in the way of anyone getting theirs but we are not obligated to give ours away so they can.
If we are going to be participants in global economy we need to recognize labor is a commodity like every other, and find ways to TAX its import. Perhaps corporate tax rates should go UP based on the number of employees they have over seas, and the number no citizen works they employee? Just a thought/.
I do security, so I get defense in depth and agree a layered approach is the correct one. Ineffective controls however have no place.
They still irritate people who are not threats leading everyone to not take security seriously, at any point and causing them to thwart other controls rendering them less effective.
You are correct in that no plane has been hijacked after the new security measures were enforce, but its also true that terrorist organizations have succeeded in getting explosives on planes, they just did not work or were prevented from use by passengers.
The passenger screening controls don't match the threat model. Most organizations who can construct a bomb small enough and powerful enough to bring down and airliner can also design it to evade the controls. Even the new scanners still won't detect the underwear bomb for example. The patdown would be unlikely to find it either.
The effective control that has prevented additional attacks is the reenforced cockpit doors; which are locked throughout the flight and pilots who are trained never to open them no matter what. You can't from the passenger cabbing gain control of an airliner today.
So the best you can hope to do with small arms is cause chaos in the cabbin which you might just as well do literally anywhere else. Or you could try a Lockerbie type attack where you attempt to bring down a plane which will already be over you target at the proper time. With the security in place today the latter is still quite possible; but again the reason it has not happened is because the terrorists that have tried it were ineffective, not because the TSA was effective.
TSA is infighting on rights, enabling and engaging in theft, costing billions, and adding no real value.
You can't have a meaningful democracy without law. In the USA states not the federal government run elections.
There is nothing democratic about allowing some international body to violate state laws because the federal government made some treaty agreement that dealt with activities outside their jurisdiction.
I don't care what your opinion is on if its a good idea to have 'theoretically' disinterested election monitors, or not that is not what is at issue here really.
Texas should enforce Texas elections laws universally until we use our Constitutional process to change how elections are run and who runs them or until Texas using its own Constitutional or legislative process agrees to hand such authority to anther body.
There is way to much bending and stretching of law going on across the entire political spectrum, and it will lead to tyranny of one kind or another unless we all stand up demand the laws be executed as written or changed by the prescribed legal method if we don't like them.
The problem is our society is structured around the idea that opportunity is basically equal so results are up to the individual; with the caveat that some people do get dealt a bad hand are born with (significant) disabilities, or are badly injured in childhood before they can be reasonably accountable for their own safety and actions. I am going to infer from the philosophy behind your argument you like me believe that outside some allowances for the above; the most justice society we humans can manage happens we don't focus on outcomes.
The problem we are now faced with, and this is new, is that there are these technologies emerging that at least have the potential to reliably confer abilities on individuals far beyond ranges of natures bell curve. Where there always outliers sure, but what if I have a drug that could turn *any* child into the next Niels Bohr?
Most people feel social mobility is a good thing; and that neither the sins nor virtue of the father should necessarily pass to the son. Leftists argue this already happens, rich parents mean their children go to better schools and therefore have an advantage through their entire lives. I think the reasonable and correct argument to this is that such advantages are what you make of them, and everyone is offered minimally adequate opportunity to succeed if they are sufficiently determined.
While the same is true for these drugs today we are approaching a situation where some of these technologies have the potential to elevate those with access to degrees beyond where anyone else could hope to compete. Who gets access to these technologies may not be determined by their own virtue but by that of those who came before them, and that might really be "unfair". I don't have all the answers and I don't like many that others have offered but it is something we need to start to think about.
They are over but the real reason they are over is coal.
Even though coal is probably our shortest most reliable and secure path to energy independence and even though we have enough to meet our needs of several centuries, using the most conservative efforts. Men like Sherrod Brown and Obama are determined to make its use impossible.
Now add the fact that Government as well as the NIMBY crowd prevented the construction of new nuclear plants, resulting in an entire deployed base being near end of life all at the same time, coinciding with destructive energy policy around coal we will see intense pressure on our base load generating capacity. Its going to be an economic calamity for our country and represents a spectacular failure on the part of Private energy, Government, and individual interest groups within our society.
Pretty much everyone is to blame actually; for ounce we probably deserve the ass reaming we are all about to receive in the mail monthly for electricity.
There is no reason an e-mail needs to contain a obfuscated link. Its either a bound through some marketing tracking crap (therefore is spam) or it might be malicous. The best way to approach this is just start dropping mails that contain links with the URL of any known shorteners.
It won't take long for legitimate and semi-legitimate senders to realize they just can't use such links because it means their messages don't get past recipient spam filters. Honestly from a security standpoint I can't see why it should ever be considered okay to follow an obfuscated link in an otherwise unauthenticated and untrusted document like an E-mail. We spend years trying to teach people not to click links in mails without checking they point where the display text says they do first and stupid bit.ly came along and make that impossible for most users.
Now maybe if the message is signed and the spam gateway can verify the signature belongs to someone or some entity on the white list fine, but otherwise discard. As network and mail admins I think we owe it to our users to take hard line against this practice.
I am not sure I agree. There is nothing stronger than self signed certificates, with the public certificate distributed out of band.
For b2b sites, corporate client vpns, personal remote access and such this is ideal, it does not delegate trust to some 3rd party that might screw up and cause things to have be changed, or risk compromise. If A wants an encrypted channel with B, if A and B can swap usb keys with each other containing their self signed certs; and they then go back and put those certs in their trust stores there is no way anyone can impersonate B to A or A to B without A or B being responsible for leaking a private key.
Obviously this only works for entities with long lived relationships, and enough value in what is being secured to make the effort worth while. Still its actually a much more secure route than a third party CA for any situation where its reasonable.
To me it still sounds like you are doing it wrong. I assume the control panel is something that only a limited number of people need? Why can't those folks just add the self signed certificate to the trust store?
The problem is both sides want it both ways. You amazing article would likely go completely undiscovered without being indexed by a search engine. So all your effort would get you pennies in ad revenue. Google is a market maker.
Google basically makes money by showing ads to people who want to use their search index service. Content providers want to make money by showing ads while people look at their content. To do that people have to know about the content. Papers etc would be essential stuck with their existing readers unless they dipped into their own margin to advertize their services. Being indexed by Google is effectively free advertising and lots of people understand that, otherwise there would not be an entire business around SEO.
This was a good an in fact pretty fair symbiotic relationship that existed for a long time. The trouble is now both sides are trying to have it both ways. Publishers expect Google to drive traffic to their sites, and pay for the privilege; which is crazy. Google expects publishers sit quietly by while they scrape larger portions of their content than just a few sentences to put under search result links, and instead use it in services like Google news where increasing people might get all of the content they need and never visit the source sites; which is crazy.
Both sides really do need each other. Google needs content to index, content providers need people to find them. Remember when the Internet first became commercial and public? You mostly continued to spend most of your time on the bulletin board service you already had, and follow some links from there via their Internet gateway. Maybe you went directly to the site of a major vendor. There was no way to "surf the web" other than mindless following "web rings" trying to stumble onto something interesting. Search engines made a commercial Web a realistic place to be discovered. Its unfortunate that greed on both sides is on a path to derail that.
I think at this point its because they are not really running against each other. They are running against the game. The real goal is not for anyone one that stage to be elected. What they want to do is make it know there are other ideas out there and they are not a "cook fringe" as the mainstream political parties try and brand them.
The first step is convincing the public at large that third party candidates are people like them with reasoned and viable ideas; not their crazy uncle Rory. The only thing that is ever going to get them the kind of media access they need to actually win a race is put up some numbers show a good part of the population bothered to go to the polls and vote for someone who is not a Democrat or Republican party affiliate. To that extend it does not matter if Jill splits Gary's vote right now. A vote for here is almost as much a victory as a vote for him.
My reference was to the end of Bretton Woods system in 1971. Okay Bretton Woods was not quite a gold standard, in the view of some but there was convertibility and at a know pegged rate, rather than a float.
I can't take anyone seriously who misuses homophones.
I feel sorry for you. That must make communication very difficult for someone who uses English as their primary language. Considering we have descriptive, not prescriptive dictionaries. They describe what most how most people are using and spelling words not how words are to be used or spelled. The expected difference between "Horde" and "Hoard" is 99% of the time perfectly clear by context independent of which spelling is used.
Correct English is anything that the speaker or writer's audience can understand without the effort of parsing it becoming a distraction.
If I write: "I like to horde gold." you know exactly what I mean. Its plenty correct. "I like to hoard gold" might be better because more people are writing that way but its nothing to get exited about.
We got off the gold standard because we were fighting a war we could not pay for and were going to default on redemptions otherwise. We were creating more money supply than there was gold to back it up and the rest of the world knew it. That is why we got off the gold standard and no other reason.
Deflation is a symptom not a cause. Its velocity not quantity of money supply that matters, where stimulating an economy is concerned. Deflation driven by delivering and hording are symptomatic of population that does not expect the prospects of wealth production to be bright in the future.
This idea that people don't spend because they will get more for it next week is a farcical, in my opinion. People don't *need* dollars or gold, they need bread to eat, cars to drive, tar for their roofs, boots for their feet, gas for their stoves etc. People stop spending not when they think money is going to gain in value, they stop spending when they question their future prospects for obtaining enough replacement money to accommodate their future needs.
I don't think people would stop spending even in the face appreciable and obvious deflation. Not even on luxuries. Look you don't want a new TV 6 months from now, you want to start enjoying today. If you were sure your job was secure and any pay cuts you might face would be no greater than the general deflationary trend you'd have no special incentive to save.
The mainstream economists are wrong about deflation being a threat. Treating is at best like using a nasal decongestant to fight a cold. It does nothing to attack the underling issues, although it might make some groups more comfortable.
Inflation does not prime the pump either. It forces people into bad decisions. They don't want to buy because they feel their security is threatened. They probably should save, but inflation will destroy their savings if they don't swap cash for assets. So you make them guess at which assets they will need rather than acquire them when they have actual needs. We have been at this experiment for about 50 years now. Do you really think our nation is on a more solid fiscal footing?
Also consider this angle, before the gold standard was dropped we had boom and bust cycles. They were more frequent but shorter dips were shallower, peaks were lower. Before the central bank we had even more rapid cycles. What happens to you now with these longer cycles if the most productive years of your own life span happen to coincide with one of the dips? You are screwed that's what. Shorter cycles are better. Trying to keep the boom times going past ripeness with monetary games means a bigger dip later, and that is really unfair to folks a little younger than you.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't happen, this thing will never leave the dock except when clear conditions exist for hundreds of miles, and even then its unlikely to leave harbor except when being transferred to a different harbor.
This thing is a fabulously expensive party barge.
Well it was designed as a summer home, so that probably was of little consideration. Insulation in a late 40's (before air conditioning was common even for the wealthy) structure not designed to be occupied in winter would not have been much of a factor in energy efficiency or comfort.
Your post is completely uninformed.
- Amusement park rides made by the lowest bidder that kill children years down the line.
This would be a matter of Civil liability. I don't know any Libertarian that is against that. The people who built it can and would be sued into oblivion for negligence, provided it really was negligence determined by a jury of our peers. It would not be in any individual or companies interests to knowing build and operate faulty equipment of such a type.
- Food sourced from China and imported.
I'll grant you there may be some truth in this one. How do you hold someone in China to account? Remember though our government was supposed to be raising almost all its revenue though import tariffs. Taxes were not supposed to be levied on things like Incomes, they were supposed to be on foreign goods. If we used that system today commodity items like food especially (we are an agricultural super power) would almost universally be sourced domestically to avoid the taxes. Using American labor to do the prep works would still be cheaper, the market would solve this problem.
- Internet service providers "adjusting" your connection speed so that you can easily reach websites they're getting kickbacks from (net neutrality stuff).
Actually you'd have much more leverage. Admittedly Internet service might very likely be less available and more expensive. See your contract would specify if you ISP could adjust connection speeds or not and how. You'd have an opportunity to get a favorable contract because you could always threaten the cable co with "adjusting" the rate you charging them rent the sq foot of land their phone poll is occupying on your property. You bet this would lead to sporadic busts of chaos and law suits again; but it systems like this are actually somewhat working in other parts of the world.
Which is why you see three different phone polls right next to each other and a rats nest of crisscrossed cables overhead in parts of southern Asia.
You can still do a year or multi-year contract nothing wrong with that. You just make sure you pay for services as they are consumed or performed.
I have had lots of carrier contracts for leased lines and such that I have been responsible. We would do them under 3 and 5 year contracts. There would be penalties if you just backed out, but you paid every month. If the lines just went dead, I would stop paying.
I don't see why a friction free copier support contract should be any different. If its $60k all you can eat per year, I'd insist on paying $5000 and an SLA that gives me an out of the contract if machines are left broken or un supplied for days on end. That would have been the responsible thing to do with the publics money.
I think most of us do realize that. We also the state doing the sorts of things and using the sorts of tools we once thought were unacceptable and certainly are associated with police states of the past and preset.
No our society here in North America (on either side of the Canadian boarder) does not resemble the old Soviet Union or today's China. We also don't want it do, so I think its a good idea to call attention to things that appear to be possible precursors to totalitarian and authoritarianism.
Contracts should go to the lowest bidder who can do the work. Specs should be written completely and independently before jobs are put out to bid. The real problem is that requirements are being written by people with a specific vendor in mind.
The situation you cite sounds like fraud to me. Maybe not but I would say the proprietors should be dragged into court and the state ought try and prove they never intended to be a going concern and always planed to take the money and not provide the services and If they can put'em the slam. At least it would remove the bad actors from our society and discourage others from trying to run such scams
Also the fuckwhit state employees who decided to pay some fly by night for a years services in advance should be fired for miss handling the publics funds. One of the requirements should have been to pay month to month. That way when the company folded up they would have been out at most 30 days cost in the case of a legitimate bankruptcy.
Windows has better file and run-time security than almost any personal operating system in use today, including OS/X and Linux.
Thank you for your post I was waiting for someone to set the record strait. I do take some exception with your final thought though.
The NT Kernel has better file and run time security than pretty much everything else out there. That is true, but in practice its not and has never been used fully. The presentation and application layers of Windows pretty much until failed to expose lots of the features until Server 2003. Even now many of them are not widely used because making much use of them tends to break functionality up the stack.
Yes they are there and you can harden a special purpose windows box to the point where I would strong doubt the best pen tester could get it. On the other hand prior to Windows 7 it impossible to do that to a more general use desktop and have it be usable. It is much much better on Windows 7, Server 2008, and though.
Yes and the worst part is the very argument shows top brass at Microsoft still regard security as a distraction rather than a key design requirement in their products.
That and attempting to duck responsibility for the security situation is a little pathetic too. Yes, the people responsible for crime are the criminals. If someone hacks you trashes you site, steals you trade secrets whatever that cracker is the responsible party. Just like if someone breaks the glass in my window reaches around and opens the lock, they own the breaking and entering. That does not mean however its not a good idea take steps to protect you valuable assets, because we know there are bad actors out there.
The reality is most of us want an operating system where the security controls are effective. Microsoft was forced by the market to 'focus on security' because businesses really were going to start jumping ship for alternatives like Apple desktops and Linux in back office (an in some cases the front office too). If Microsoft had made a correct allocation of resources to security in the first place they would not have to sideline so many other efforts to fill in the deficit later.
I have an ex-pat friend who lives in China, and in fact works for China Telecom. They're not emotionless, but they are worker ants. Look up how many people have died during the construction of, er... any major public works project. Ever. Even the Great Wall of China has bodies buried in it. No, really... sometimes people fell in, and they just poured clay in over them and kept going.
I agree with most of your post but the quote about is a pretty tough stretch. The regime and culture that build the 'Wall' are dust. It has little resemblance with the present. That and its not really uniquely Chinese, behavior. The same is true of the Hover Damn for example and that is much more closely connected with our present.
One thing that gets over looked often about China (especially by China itself as a matter of policy) is they are not and old nation. Even much of their culture was radically ripped and replaced by Mao. Everyone is always pointing out how "young" or nation is but by most practical measures we have been using our present system longer than China.
If there is a global market on the price of oil, why is there not one for labor?
There is a global market for labor, and its a functioning one. The problem is there is not a global market for tax authorities, regulatory environments, cultural norms etc.
H1b is not really the issue either. What H1b has done to some tech heavy industries technology is or will do in the near future anyway. Think about the typical white collar worker? With today's tech is there much of anything they do that a telecommuter could not? Its only getting better as well in that regard. Automation is getting better and cheaper all the time.
If you are in IT perhaps today you still need to wonder in the server room but, pretty soon some robot is going to swap out that blade in the VM rack, just like the tape library does now. As fuel and transit costs continue to rise the only workers that it won't make sense to have telecommuting are at the very top and very very bottom. Hell they are even experimenting with robotic surgery, operating on actual humans!
So we really will soon be to the point where the labor (thinking and creating) mostly can be done from anywhere. Wages will reflect that unless some protectionism is employed.
All this would ordinarily just cause deflation and that would be fine. The trouble even as libertarian I see with the argument that "if American workers want 10x cost of compensation they need to be 10 times as productive"; is that the answer is most of us can't. You bet in my profession I can out perform the typical Indian or Chinese worker but probably not by 10 times. I don't control all of that 10x cost either, lots of it is in taxation, compliance requirements, etc. So I don't really have a choice in that much of is Government taking my choices away. The same goes for my actual compensation requirements. I have to pay real-estate taxes, income taxes, sales taxes that taken all together might be a 100x what some guy on the other side of the world is asked to pay. Then I am barred from just dumping my shit in the streets, burning my trash, and all manor of things. I have to pay to have that stuff done too (Independent of if I personally want to or value that). So no I can't take 50% pay cut.
Yes we do need as a society to do many of these things. We need to tax people so we can run schools and educate or children even the 53% or so of them that happen to be female. No we can't afford (long term) to let people turn the place into a squalid dump. There do need to be some rules. True wealth creation is not a zero sum game but we are not as a species doing it fast enough to elevate all 7B of us out of poverty. (If you come up with solutions there I am happily to reevaluate the rest of my position; it would be wonderful to be able to help everyone)
Wealth has been concentrated in this nation we need to stop exporting it. Trade deficits need to be prevented. Immigration needs to be denied when its not to our clear economic advantage. We need to get our energy situation resolved at least to the point that the economic gains we make importing energy are equal to or greater than the cost. Providing massive amounts of aide that enables these places to function needs to stop, as does the peace umbrella subsidy our massive over seas military deployment offers them. Yes we've got ours. No we should not ever stand in the way of anyone getting theirs but we are not obligated to give ours away so they can.
If we are going to be participants in global economy we need to recognize labor is a commodity like every other, and find ways to TAX its import. Perhaps corporate tax rates should go UP based on the number of employees they have over seas, and the number no citizen works they employee? Just a thought/.
I do security, so I get defense in depth and agree a layered approach is the correct one. Ineffective controls however have no place.
They still irritate people who are not threats leading everyone to not take security seriously, at any point and causing them to thwart other controls rendering them less effective.
You are correct in that no plane has been hijacked after the new security measures were enforce, but its also true that terrorist organizations have succeeded in getting explosives on planes, they just did not work or were prevented from use by passengers.
The passenger screening controls don't match the threat model. Most organizations who can construct a bomb small enough and powerful enough to bring down and airliner can also design it to evade the controls. Even the new scanners still won't detect the underwear bomb for example. The patdown would be unlikely to find it either.
The effective control that has prevented additional attacks is the reenforced cockpit doors; which are locked throughout the flight and pilots who are trained never to open them no matter what. You can't from the passenger cabbing gain control of an airliner today.
So the best you can hope to do with small arms is cause chaos in the cabbin which you might just as well do literally anywhere else. Or you could try a Lockerbie type attack where you attempt to bring down a plane which will already be over you target at the proper time. With the security in place today the latter is still quite possible; but again the reason it has not happened is because the terrorists that have tried it were ineffective, not because the TSA was effective.
TSA is infighting on rights, enabling and engaging in theft, costing billions, and adding no real value.
You can't have a meaningful democracy without law. In the USA states not the federal government run elections.
There is nothing democratic about allowing some international body to violate state laws because the federal government made some treaty agreement that dealt with activities outside their jurisdiction.
I don't care what your opinion is on if its a good idea to have 'theoretically' disinterested election monitors, or not that is not what is at issue here really.
Texas should enforce Texas elections laws universally until we use our Constitutional process to change how elections are run and who runs them or until Texas using its own Constitutional or legislative process agrees to hand such authority to anther body.
There is way to much bending and stretching of law going on across the entire political spectrum, and it will lead to tyranny of one kind or another unless we all stand up demand the laws be executed as written or changed by the prescribed legal method if we don't like them.
The problem is our society is structured around the idea that opportunity is basically equal so results are up to the individual; with the caveat that some people do get dealt a bad hand are born with (significant) disabilities, or are badly injured in childhood before they can be reasonably accountable for their own safety and actions. I am going to infer from the philosophy behind your argument you like me believe that outside some allowances for the above; the most justice society we humans can manage happens we don't focus on outcomes.
The problem we are now faced with, and this is new, is that there are these technologies emerging that at least have the potential to reliably confer abilities on individuals far beyond ranges of natures bell curve. Where there always outliers sure, but what if I have a drug that could turn *any* child into the next Niels Bohr?
Most people feel social mobility is a good thing; and that neither the sins nor virtue of the father should necessarily pass to the son. Leftists argue this already happens, rich parents mean their children go to better schools and therefore have an advantage through their entire lives. I think the reasonable and correct argument to this is that such advantages are what you make of them, and everyone is offered minimally adequate opportunity to succeed if they are sufficiently determined.
While the same is true for these drugs today we are approaching a situation where some of these technologies have the potential to elevate those with access to degrees beyond where anyone else could hope to compete. Who gets access to these technologies may not be determined by their own virtue but by that of those who came before them, and that might really be "unfair". I don't have all the answers and I don't like many that others have offered but it is something we need to start to think about.
They are over but the real reason they are over is coal.
Even though coal is probably our shortest most reliable and secure path to energy independence and even though we have enough to meet our needs of several centuries, using the most conservative efforts. Men like Sherrod Brown and Obama are determined to make its use impossible.
Now add the fact that Government as well as the NIMBY crowd prevented the construction of new nuclear plants, resulting in an entire deployed base being near end of life all at the same time, coinciding with destructive energy policy around coal we will see intense pressure on our base load generating capacity. Its going to be an economic calamity for our country and represents a spectacular failure on the part of Private energy, Government, and individual interest groups within our society.
Pretty much everyone is to blame actually; for ounce we probably deserve the ass reaming we are all about to receive in the mail monthly for electricity.
Telling a new prospective hire that they can't use their tablet is a not a great way to hire the best.
Wow, that has to be the most out of touch thing I have ever read!
There is no reason an e-mail needs to contain a obfuscated link. Its either a bound through some marketing tracking crap (therefore is spam) or it might be malicous. The best way to approach this is just start dropping mails that contain links with the URL of any known shorteners.
It won't take long for legitimate and semi-legitimate senders to realize they just can't use such links because it means their messages don't get past recipient spam filters. Honestly from a security standpoint I can't see why it should ever be considered okay to follow an obfuscated link in an otherwise unauthenticated and untrusted document like an E-mail. We spend years trying to teach people not to click links in mails without checking they point where the display text says they do first and stupid bit.ly came along and make that impossible for most users.
Now maybe if the message is signed and the spam gateway can verify the signature belongs to someone or some entity on the white list fine, but otherwise discard. As network and mail admins I think we owe it to our users to take hard line against this practice.
I am not sure I agree. There is nothing stronger than self signed certificates, with the public certificate distributed out of band.
For b2b sites, corporate client vpns, personal remote access and such this is ideal, it does not delegate trust to some 3rd party that might screw up and cause things to have be changed, or risk compromise. If A wants an encrypted channel with B, if A and B can swap usb keys with each other containing their self signed certs; and they then go back and put those certs in their trust stores there is no way anyone can impersonate B to A or A to B without A or B being responsible for leaking a private key.
Obviously this only works for entities with long lived relationships, and enough value in what is being secured to make the effort worth while. Still its actually a much more secure route than a third party CA for any situation where its reasonable.
To me it still sounds like you are doing it wrong. I assume the control panel is something that only a limited number of people need? Why can't those folks just add the self signed certificate to the trust store?
ah the cross platform dream of .Net, run your application 32-bit and 64-bit Windows!
The problem is both sides want it both ways. You amazing article would likely go completely undiscovered without being indexed by a search engine. So all your effort would get you pennies in ad revenue. Google is a market maker.
Google basically makes money by showing ads to people who want to use their search index service. Content providers want to make money by showing ads while people look at their content. To do that people have to know about the content. Papers etc would be essential stuck with their existing readers unless they dipped into their own margin to advertize their services. Being indexed by Google is effectively free advertising and lots of people understand that, otherwise there would not be an entire business around SEO.
This was a good an in fact pretty fair symbiotic relationship that existed for a long time. The trouble is now both sides are trying to have it both ways. Publishers expect Google to drive traffic to their sites, and pay for the privilege; which is crazy. Google expects publishers sit quietly by while they scrape larger portions of their content than just a few sentences to put under search result links, and instead use it in services like Google news where increasing people might get all of the content they need and never visit the source sites; which is crazy.
Both sides really do need each other. Google needs content to index, content providers need people to find them. Remember when the Internet first became commercial and public? You mostly continued to spend most of your time on the bulletin board service you already had, and follow some links from there via their Internet gateway. Maybe you went directly to the site of a major vendor. There was no way to "surf the web" other than mindless following "web rings" trying to stumble onto something interesting. Search engines made a commercial Web a realistic place to be discovered. Its unfortunate that greed on both sides is on a path to derail that.
I think at this point its because they are not really running against each other. They are running against the game. The real goal is not for anyone one that stage to be elected. What they want to do is make it know there are other ideas out there and they are not a "cook fringe" as the mainstream political parties try and brand them.
The first step is convincing the public at large that third party candidates are people like them with reasoned and viable ideas; not their crazy uncle Rory. The only thing that is ever going to get them the kind of media access they need to actually win a race is put up some numbers show a good part of the population bothered to go to the polls and vote for someone who is not a Democrat or Republican party affiliate. To that extend it does not matter if Jill splits Gary's vote right now. A vote for here is almost as much a victory as a vote for him.
My reference was to the end of Bretton Woods system in 1971. Okay Bretton Woods was not quite a gold standard, in the view of some but there was convertibility and at a know pegged rate, rather than a float.
I can't take anyone seriously who misuses homophones.
I feel sorry for you. That must make communication very difficult for someone who uses English as their primary language. Considering we have descriptive, not prescriptive dictionaries. They describe what most how most people are using and spelling words not how words are to be used or spelled. The expected difference between "Horde" and "Hoard" is 99% of the time perfectly clear by context independent of which spelling is used.
Correct English is anything that the speaker or writer's audience can understand without the effort of parsing it becoming a distraction.
If I write: "I like to horde gold." you know exactly what I mean. Its plenty correct. "I like to hoard gold" might be better because more people are writing that way but its nothing to get exited about.
We got off the gold standard because we were fighting a war we could not pay for and were going to default on redemptions otherwise. We were creating more money supply than there was gold to back it up and the rest of the world knew it. That is why we got off the gold standard and no other reason.
Deflation is a symptom not a cause. Its velocity not quantity of money supply that matters, where stimulating an economy is concerned. Deflation driven by delivering and hording are symptomatic of population that does not expect the prospects of wealth production to be bright in the future.
This idea that people don't spend because they will get more for it next week is a farcical, in my opinion. People don't *need* dollars or gold, they need bread to eat, cars to drive, tar for their roofs, boots for their feet, gas for their stoves etc. People stop spending not when they think money is going to gain in value, they stop spending when they question their future prospects for obtaining enough replacement money to accommodate their future needs.
I don't think people would stop spending even in the face appreciable and obvious deflation. Not even on luxuries. Look you don't want a new TV 6 months from now, you want to start enjoying today. If you were sure your job was secure and any pay cuts you might face would be no greater than the general deflationary trend you'd have no special incentive to save.
The mainstream economists are wrong about deflation being a threat. Treating is at best like using a nasal decongestant to fight a cold. It does nothing to attack the underling issues, although it might make some groups more comfortable.
Inflation does not prime the pump either. It forces people into bad decisions. They don't want to buy because they feel their security is threatened. They probably should save, but inflation will destroy their savings if they don't swap cash for assets. So you make them guess at which assets they will need rather than acquire them when they have actual needs. We have been at this experiment for about 50 years now. Do you really think our nation is on a more solid fiscal footing?
Also consider this angle, before the gold standard was dropped we had boom and bust cycles. They were more frequent but shorter dips were shallower, peaks were lower. Before the central bank we had even more rapid cycles. What happens to you now with these longer cycles if the most productive years of your own life span happen to coincide with one of the dips? You are screwed that's what. Shorter cycles are better. Trying to keep the boom times going past ripeness with monetary games means a bigger dip later, and that is really unfair to folks a little younger than you.