Wife in question has administered lab machines before. So I left the Windows admin to her. B-)
For net access I put a third ethernet card in the Linux-based firewall machine and added rules:
- This new "red" net, like the "blue" net where the linux boxen live, was essentially restricted to talking to the firewall machine and outgoing TCP connections (plus very few specific other things.)
- "Red" and "blue" were treated, with respect to each other, as just as foreign as the wild-and-woolly Internet.
I know this doesn't answer questions about "How do you protect the Windows machine?". But there is plenty of stuff elsewhere about that. Plugging Microsoft's security holes is a multi-billion dollar industry. This was "How do you protect the rest of the machines in the house?". Giving Windows boxen their own LAN segment and walling it off from reduces the problem to the equivalent of a Windows box (or LAN of them) alone behind a NAT/Firewall machine. That's an already (sorta) solved problem.
This whole article is based on some blog posting of an email... We do not know if the email is legit or fake.... This was pimped at some security convention... Of course the people discussing it have a motive to make money...
And even if they're being honest:
Any bets whether they found one of the law-enforcement "sting" operations?
As a lay man, I cannot see a genuine use of this technology without breaking the law.
As with ALL security research there's ALWAYS one legal use: Using the info and techniques to find ways to defend yourself against bad guys who use the techniques against you and to test that your defenses are adequate.
It's monatomic chlorine (and other halogens like bromine and iodine - the latter also an element common in sea water) that is blamed for the ozone depletion.
The difference between a chloride ion and a singleton chlorine atom is an extra electron. Once the ion is floating free in vacuum the extra electron will be gone as soon as a photon with greater than the bandgap energy hits it. There's lots of UV up there so you're talking a very short time scale. (Ditto additional electrons - but they'll be quickly replaced from the surrounding plasma by others attracted by the resulting net positive charge.)
Not only would lofting water into space be a colossal waste of energy and water, it would only exacerbate the problem!
How?
We're talking about squirting it at the debris in a deorbiting direction - which also puts any water that misses back into the atmosphere. Meanwhile the water that hits turns to steam and joins the rest of the tenuous upper atmosphere - eventually working its way down (except for the bit that random-walks up the gravity well, gets past the magnetopause, and gets blown away by solar wind).
On the other hand it would also be possible that with a slight miscalculation you push it into an orbit that's either much more dangerous (if it bounces instead of incinerates) or more difficult to track and clean up.
Ignoring minor perturbations from the Moon and Sun's gravity, orbits of the Earth are ellipses.
If it "bounces" (more like "skips") due to aerodynamic effects in the upper atmosphere it will still be in a thick-atmosphere-intersecting orbit afterward (and all the pieces will be if it comes apart). So it will be back shortly - and repeatedly if necessary - to get slowed down some more. If it's a shape that deflects a lot and randomly you might not know exactly where each loop will be pointed. But you'll always know that the bottom part is in about the same place and the top part is lower with every pass.
Deceleration on the near-earth side of the orbit lowers the far-earth side of it, and vice-versa. Once the orbit is intersecting significant atmosphere you have to apply a LOT of delta-V in an orbit RAISING direction in the part of the orbit FARTHEST from the earth to raise the perigee out to something thinner. That's not going to happen accidentally.
This is not a game of billiards. It will take a LOT more than a SLIGHT miscalculation on a delta-V application intended to put something into the atmosphere to accidentally put it somewhere more dangerous than it already is.
Distill, reverse-osmosis, or otherwise purify it first.
I'm normally one to debunk hand-wringing about the ozone layer. But most of the sprayed water will miss the debris and impact the upper atmosphere immediately (while the rest comes down slowly over many years). If you use unpurified sea water you'll put a LOT of chlorine ions from sea salt into the ozone layer - near the equator where it's a big deal - and chlorine is the catalyst for the ozone->oxygen transition that got freon banned.
More to the point, whoever proposed this idea seems to be completely unaware of the workings of orbital mechanics. Clue: the stuff is already falling. The problem is it keeps missing.
Looks to me like he knows exactly what he's talking about - and is out to tweak the orbits of the debris chunks so they stop missing. (Actually, so they spend part of their orbit in atmosphere thick enough to make the orbit decay in a timescale shorter than decades.)
Actually, it is likely that a lot of the water will come back to earth. In a LARGE number of years.
Most of it will come back immediately. The water spray itself, aimed to transfer momentum to the debris in order to deorbit it, should itself be in an atmosphere-intersecting trajectory. The bulk will miss and end up in the atmosphere.
What gets blasted into steam will still be deep in the gravity well. Most of it will be perturbed into denser atmosphere in reasonably short order. (Remember: The atmosphere doesn't "end". It peters out gradually until it merges with the solar wind out at the magnetosphere shock front.) Some will be ionized and the hydrogen will tend to blow away, leaving hydroxyl radicals and monatomic oxyygen - much like what naturally happens in the upper atmosphere already.
You WILL see an increase in upper atmosphere water and noctilucent clouds. But we're probably not talking enough water to have any other significant environmental impact. (Better use deionized water, though. Any chlorine would be a real issue for the ozone. I'm normally a debunker of ozone-hole hand-wringing but this could be significant.)
As to "running out of water": Think of the size of the oceans. We're talking a VERY small drop from a VERY big bucket.
Move it to a new department? Change the entry for the machine on the DHCP server. No need to pull it in for retweaking.
Or even plugged in when you make the change.
You can use the whole disk for swap and/tmp. No individual installs. No local copies.
And the user's entire persistent state is on your fileservers, where you control the backup, maintain history (and let the user recover his OWN lost files), etc.
Meanwhile, with nothing persistent on the user's machine there's no info lost if it fries or is stolen, or if you need to upgrade his hardware. Just configure a fresh machine for netboot and replace the MAC address of his workstation with the new machine. Instant gratification.
You also get to update the software on ALL the machines by updating ONE image on the servers.
Many of the things group policy can do has nothing to do with "security" or "preventing users" from doing anything. It has a lot to do with quickly standardizing departments, offices, rooms, or whatever your business structure is.
When you move a computer to a different department you simply drag the computer in AD to the different OU and BAM! That computer now gets everything new with its policies. There's no bringing the computer in to the IT department and reloading its configuration with "Configuration A for Department B".
A lot of this can be done by netbooting the computer and letting it grab its configuration from the filesystems it points to.
The configuration files (mainly in/etc) can contain the default startup scripts for the department's configurations. If you REALLY need to limit what apps the user can run, point to binary and library directories that don't contain anything the user mustn't have.
Move it to a new department? Change the entry for the machine on the DHCP server. No need to pull it in for retweaking.
This also means you don't need to have the OS and apps on the machine's own disk. You have a single copy of each kernel, utility, and library on your fileservers. You can use the whole disk for swap and/tmp. No individual installs. No local copies. Save the disk for stuff where fast access is needed but is all volatile. Meanwhile the cache take care of unloading the fileservers and network.
So how long is it going to be before lots of overpaid lawyers sue the cloud-seeders on the grounds that the communities downwind "own" the rain?
I heard (I think it was in a meteorology class back in the '60s) that the early plans for cloud seeding as an agricultural tool had been scrapped for exactly this reason: Concern that the downwind farmers would sue those upwind who used cloud seeding for denying them the moisture that otherwise might have ended up as rain on THEIR fields.
Water rights are a BIG DEAL for farmers. Cloud seeding doesn't put any more water into the air. When it works at all (the conditions must be right) it just makes the water fall out sooner/faster than it would have on its own. So the downwind farmers would have a valid point about the upwind operation "stealing their water".
Do we know that creating rain somewhere will not cause drought elsewhere?
I have heard that it was fear of lawsuits from people downwind, over moisture removed from the air by cloud seeding to create rain on land upwind that otherwise would have ended up as rain on THEIR land, which ended the experiments with cloud seeding to aid agriculture in the USA.
Though we do have a surplus of illegals that are more then happy to lift that shovel for less then a living wage."
Plus nearly nonexistent taxation, a host of government and charity benefits paid for by OTHER taxpayers (including notably the medical costs for their whole family), effective immunity from traffic laws, no union dues, and the absence of a bunch of other expenses that a legal citizen can't avoid.
Illegal alien workers are government welfare for corporations, contractors, etc. And with the immigration laws unenforced even those companies who WANT to abide by the law, but are in competitive bid situations, have to chose between hiring illegals or losing business and going under.
This relates to a one-dimensional crystal forming on a flat surface.
I wonder if it's related to the early stages of frost formation on windows, where needles of ice form rapidly on the surface before the ice fills in between them?
If they are really complaining about the 30% that apple is charging they they are just being greedy.
As I read TFA they're not complaining about Apple's cut. They're complaining about the process of becoming a developer and releasing products being slowed to a crawl and/or stonewalled entirely by Apple's bureaucracy.
Apple's cut has been mentioned mainly as the likely downside for itself of Apple's intransigence and a motivation for Apple to go after the alternative distributor(s) in the courts and otherwise.
It would be interesting to see what contract language (if any) and/or legal regime would apply if the developer of an app that HAD made it to Apple's store cloned the signature and sold it through other outlets. (And if something changed besides the signature between the release and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.)
It might be hard to bring even the DMCA's "circumvention" provision into play if the app was identical except for the signature and was sold by the author or other rights-holder.
(It would be a one-shot, though. Anybody who tried this would almost certainly have any future products or releases, at a minimum, "mysteriously delayed forever".)
= = = =
Adding the signature alone would not qualify as "creative work" to allow copyright itself to apply to the signing. If something changed other than the signature between the release to the apple store and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.
Having the disk drive processor or special-purpose logic on the drive do the encryption/decryption is a fine division of effort.
But until the firmware is open (and there's a way to check that it's what's really running) I won't use such a thing. (Except maybe in transparent mode with the REAL crypto being in software on the machine.)
There are too many opportunities for data compromise with built-in, proprietary and closed, firmware encryption: Faulty design, government back doors, and bad-guy back doors to name just three.
Well I'm a crazy [insert whatever] who wants to know why the hell we're giving handouts for TV for anybody! Nobody will die without American Idol.
It's not a handout. It's a (partial) reimbursement from the government to the previous users of the bandwidth for seizing the bandwidth and selling it for billions, which went into the treasury.
The analog television system worked just fine for what it did. A LOT of people bought equipment in the good faith expectation that it would continue to be usable for the equipment's life.
Then the government decided that, if it forced the TV stations to switch over to digital, they could provide a replacement service that would be better than the existing system (which wastes lots of bandwidth to reduce analog interference), it could re-sieze a lot of that bandwidth and auction it off to other users.
- The existing broadcasters get replacement bandwidth and can get more use out of it by multiplexing other services into it - which helps them pay for the new equipment.
- More use gets made of the total bandwidth, thanks to the new services enabled in the auctioned spectrum. So the buyers and their customers are enabled.
- But the old viewers are hosed. They have to upgrade perfectly good equipment or buy a converter to continue getting the level of service they already bought into. There are a LOT of them, and many of them don't have a lot of spare money to throw at the extra expense.
So the government is spending PART of the money it got from the auction of the spectrum to pay PART of the cost of the converter boxes for the viewers.
It's like paying (but less than market rate) for land seized by eminent domain.
The origin of property rights is making use of and improvements on previously unowned property in the expectation that you can then continue to do so. By that definition, the broadcasters and the viewers had a property right in the spectrum previously used for analog broadcast TV from which they've been evicted by the government for its own profit. So it's reasonable for them to expect payment for their loss and trouble.
Re:Not very "Family Friendly" either
on
Watchmen Watched
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Too much graphic sex and foul language.
You didn't read the graphic novel, did you?
Given what Watchmen was about and how it was constructed you couldn't make it "family friendly" without destroying it.
By the way: I understand that Benito Mussolini didn't really make the trains run on time. Instead he made the papers SAY that he made the trains run on time.
The US murder rate is about 5.9 per 100,000. It hasn't been at 9 per 100,000 in a number of years. The UK's is about 1.4 per 100,000.
The US counts a murder when there's a body and foul play is suspected. The UK counts a murder when there's a conviction.
Japan's is about 0.5 per 100,000.
When a father of five kills his kids, wife, and himself, Japan counts seven suicides, the US counts six murders and a suicide. (Try comparing the sum of the murder and suicide rates in both countries to see whether it's mathematically possible that the US has a lower rate if they were counted the same.)
The murder victimization rate of US citizens of UK descent is lower than that of UK citizens. Ditto for US citizens of African descent vs. Africans, US citizens of Japanese descent vs. Japanese citizens, and for several other regions of origin. (Allowing immigration of people from more violent cultures and letting them keep their cultures until they voluntarily adopt another has the downside of raising the average level of violence - though fortunately {for others} the violence occurs mainly among the groups in question rather than across group boundaries.)
When comparing death rates from murder and drawing conclusions about culture, don't forget to include deaths from war and genocide (including euphemisms like "sectarian violence" and "ethnic cleansing").
Slashdot Mirror
...unless you're in Germany.
Just because it's legit doesn't mean it's legal. B-(
Wife in question has administered lab machines before. So I left the Windows admin to her. B-)
For net access I put a third ethernet card in the Linux-based firewall machine and added rules:
- This new "red" net, like the "blue" net where the linux boxen live, was essentially restricted to talking to the firewall machine and outgoing TCP connections (plus very few specific other things.)
- "Red" and "blue" were treated, with respect to each other, as just as foreign as the wild-and-woolly Internet.
I know this doesn't answer questions about "How do you protect the Windows machine?". But there is plenty of stuff elsewhere about that. Plugging Microsoft's security holes is a multi-billion dollar industry. This was "How do you protect the rest of the machines in the house?". Giving Windows boxen their own LAN segment and walling it off from reduces the problem to the equivalent of a Windows box (or LAN of them) alone behind a NAT/Firewall machine. That's an already (sorta) solved problem.
This whole article is based on some blog posting of an email ... We do not know if the email is legit or fake. ... This was pimped at some security convention ... Of course the people discussing it have a motive to make money ...
And even if they're being honest:
Any bets whether they found one of the law-enforcement "sting" operations?
As a lay man, I cannot see a genuine use of this technology without breaking the law.
As with ALL security research there's ALWAYS one legal use: Using the info and techniques to find ways to defend yourself against bad guys who use the techniques against you and to test that your defenses are adequate.
It's monatomic chlorine (and other halogens like bromine and iodine - the latter also an element common in sea water) that is blamed for the ozone depletion.
The difference between a chloride ion and a singleton chlorine atom is an extra electron. Once the ion is floating free in vacuum the extra electron will be gone as soon as a photon with greater than the bandgap energy hits it. There's lots of UV up there so you're talking a very short time scale. (Ditto additional electrons - but they'll be quickly replaced from the surrounding plasma by others attracted by the resulting net positive charge.)
I think Estonia should reciprocate and offer them high paying jobs in their IT Department.
Sounds like a great idea to me.
They could help build the country's new IT infrastructure at the Viru site.
Not only would lofting water into space be a colossal waste of energy and water, it would only exacerbate the problem!
How?
We're talking about squirting it at the debris in a deorbiting direction - which also puts any water that misses back into the atmosphere. Meanwhile the water that hits turns to steam and joins the rest of the tenuous upper atmosphere - eventually working its way down (except for the bit that random-walks up the gravity well, gets past the magnetopause, and gets blown away by solar wind).
On the other hand it would also be possible that with a slight miscalculation you push it into an orbit that's either much more dangerous (if it bounces instead of incinerates) or more difficult to track and clean up.
Ignoring minor perturbations from the Moon and Sun's gravity, orbits of the Earth are ellipses.
If it "bounces" (more like "skips") due to aerodynamic effects in the upper atmosphere it will still be in a thick-atmosphere-intersecting orbit afterward (and all the pieces will be if it comes apart). So it will be back shortly - and repeatedly if necessary - to get slowed down some more. If it's a shape that deflects a lot and randomly you might not know exactly where each loop will be pointed. But you'll always know that the bottom part is in about the same place and the top part is lower with every pass.
Deceleration on the near-earth side of the orbit lowers the far-earth side of it, and vice-versa. Once the orbit is intersecting significant atmosphere you have to apply a LOT of delta-V in an orbit RAISING direction in the part of the orbit FARTHEST from the earth to raise the perigee out to something thinner. That's not going to happen accidentally.
This is not a game of billiards. It will take a LOT more than a SLIGHT miscalculation on a delta-V application intended to put something into the atmosphere to accidentally put it somewhere more dangerous than it already is.
Send up seawater.
Distill, reverse-osmosis, or otherwise purify it first.
I'm normally one to debunk hand-wringing about the ozone layer. But most of the sprayed water will miss the debris and impact the upper atmosphere immediately (while the rest comes down slowly over many years). If you use unpurified sea water you'll put a LOT of chlorine ions from sea salt into the ozone layer - near the equator where it's a big deal - and chlorine is the catalyst for the ozone->oxygen transition that got freon banned.
More to the point, whoever proposed this idea seems to be completely unaware of the workings of orbital mechanics. Clue: the stuff is already falling. The problem is it keeps missing.
Looks to me like he knows exactly what he's talking about - and is out to tweak the orbits of the debris chunks so they stop missing. (Actually, so they spend part of their orbit in atmosphere thick enough to make the orbit decay in a timescale shorter than decades.)
Actually, it is likely that a lot of the water will come back to earth. In a LARGE number of years.
Most of it will come back immediately. The water spray itself, aimed to transfer momentum to the debris in order to deorbit it, should itself be in an atmosphere-intersecting trajectory. The bulk will miss and end up in the atmosphere.
What gets blasted into steam will still be deep in the gravity well. Most of it will be perturbed into denser atmosphere in reasonably short order. (Remember: The atmosphere doesn't "end". It peters out gradually until it merges with the solar wind out at the magnetosphere shock front.) Some will be ionized and the hydrogen will tend to blow away, leaving hydroxyl radicals and monatomic oxyygen - much like what naturally happens in the upper atmosphere already.
You WILL see an increase in upper atmosphere water and noctilucent clouds. But we're probably not talking enough water to have any other significant environmental impact. (Better use deionized water, though. Any chlorine would be a real issue for the ozone. I'm normally a debunker of ozone-hole hand-wringing but this could be significant.)
As to "running out of water": Think of the size of the oceans. We're talking a VERY small drop from a VERY big bucket.
Maybe he was arrested for using that sig, to keep track of him while they hunted for a body.
Move it to a new department? Change the entry for the machine on the DHCP server. No need to pull it in for retweaking.
Or even plugged in when you make the change.
You can use the whole disk for swap and /tmp. No individual installs. No local copies.
And the user's entire persistent state is on your fileservers, where you control the backup, maintain history (and let the user recover his OWN lost files), etc.
Meanwhile, with nothing persistent on the user's machine there's no info lost if it fries or is stolen, or if you need to upgrade his hardware. Just configure a fresh machine for netboot and replace the MAC address of his workstation with the new machine. Instant gratification.
You also get to update the software on ALL the machines by updating ONE image on the servers.
Many of the things group policy can do has nothing to do with "security" or "preventing users" from doing anything. It has a lot to do with quickly standardizing departments, offices, rooms, or whatever your business structure is.
When you move a computer to a different department you simply drag the computer in AD to the different OU and BAM! That computer now gets everything new with its policies. There's no bringing the computer in to the IT department and reloading its configuration with "Configuration A for Department B".
A lot of this can be done by netbooting the computer and letting it grab its configuration from the filesystems it points to.
The configuration files (mainly in /etc) can contain the default startup scripts for the department's configurations. If you REALLY need to limit what apps the user can run, point to binary and library directories that don't contain anything the user mustn't have.
Move it to a new department? Change the entry for the machine on the DHCP server. No need to pull it in for retweaking.
This also means you don't need to have the OS and apps on the machine's own disk. You have a single copy of each kernel, utility, and library on your fileservers. You can use the whole disk for swap and /tmp. No individual
installs. No local copies. Save the disk for stuff where fast access is needed but is all volatile. Meanwhile the cache take care of unloading the fileservers and network.
So how long is it going to be before lots of overpaid lawyers sue the cloud-seeders on the grounds that the communities downwind "own" the rain?
I heard (I think it was in a meteorology class back in the '60s) that the early plans for cloud seeding as an agricultural tool had been scrapped for exactly this reason: Concern that the downwind farmers would sue those upwind who used cloud seeding for denying them the moisture that otherwise might have ended up as rain on THEIR fields.
Water rights are a BIG DEAL for farmers. Cloud seeding doesn't put any more water into the air. When it works at all (the conditions must be right) it just makes the water fall out sooner/faster than it would have on its own. So the downwind farmers would have a valid point about the upwind operation "stealing their water".
Do we know that creating rain somewhere will not cause drought elsewhere?
I have heard that it was fear of lawsuits from people downwind, over moisture removed from the air by cloud seeding to create rain on land upwind that otherwise would have ended up as rain on THEIR land, which ended the experiments with cloud seeding to aid agriculture in the USA.
Though we do have a surplus of illegals that are more then happy to lift that shovel for less then a living wage."
Plus nearly nonexistent taxation, a host of government and charity benefits paid for by OTHER taxpayers (including notably the medical costs for their whole family), effective immunity from traffic laws, no union dues, and the absence of a bunch of other expenses that a legal citizen can't avoid.
Illegal alien workers are government welfare for corporations, contractors, etc. And with the immigration laws unenforced even those companies who WANT to abide by the law, but are in competitive bid situations, have to chose between hiring illegals or losing business and going under.
This relates to a one-dimensional crystal forming on a flat surface.
I wonder if it's related to the early stages of frost formation on windows, where needles of ice form rapidly on the surface before the ice fills in between them?
If they are really complaining about the 30% that apple is charging they they are just being greedy.
As I read TFA they're not complaining about Apple's cut. They're complaining about the process of becoming a developer and releasing products being slowed to a crawl and/or stonewalled entirely by Apple's bureaucracy.
Apple's cut has been mentioned mainly as the likely downside for itself of Apple's intransigence and a motivation for Apple to go after the alternative distributor(s) in the courts and otherwise.
It would be interesting to see what contract language (if any) and/or legal regime would apply if the developer of an app that HAD made it to Apple's store cloned the signature and sold it through other outlets. (And if something changed besides the signature between the release and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.)
It might be hard to bring even the DMCA's "circumvention" provision into play if the app was identical except for the signature and was sold by the author or other rights-holder.
(It would be a one-shot, though. Anybody who tried this would almost certainly have any future products or releases, at a minimum, "mysteriously delayed forever".)
= = = =
Adding the signature alone would not qualify as "creative work" to allow copyright itself to apply to the signing. If something changed other than the signature between the release to the apple store and what comes out of the store there are other issues to address.
Having the disk drive processor or special-purpose logic on the drive do the encryption/decryption is a fine division of effort.
But until the firmware is open (and there's a way to check that it's what's really running) I won't use such a thing. (Except maybe in transparent mode with the REAL crypto being in software on the machine.)
There are too many opportunities for data compromise with built-in, proprietary and closed, firmware encryption: Faulty design, government back doors, and bad-guy back doors to name just three.
Well I'm a crazy [insert whatever] who wants to know why the hell we're giving handouts for TV for anybody! Nobody will die without American Idol.
It's not a handout. It's a (partial) reimbursement from the government to the previous users of the bandwidth for seizing the bandwidth and selling it for billions, which went into the treasury.
The analog television system worked just fine for what it did. A LOT of people bought equipment in the good faith expectation that it would continue to be usable for the equipment's life.
Then the government decided that, if it forced the TV stations to switch over to digital, they could provide a replacement service that would be better than the existing system (which wastes lots of bandwidth to reduce analog interference), it could re-sieze a lot of that bandwidth and auction it off to other users.
- The existing broadcasters get replacement bandwidth and can get more use out of it by multiplexing other services into it - which helps them pay for the new equipment.
- More use gets made of the total bandwidth, thanks to the new services enabled in the auctioned spectrum. So the buyers and their customers are enabled.
- But the old viewers are hosed. They have to upgrade perfectly good equipment or buy a converter to continue getting the level of service they already bought into. There are a LOT of them, and many of them don't have a lot of spare money to throw at the extra expense.
So the government is spending PART of the money it got from the auction of the spectrum to pay PART of the cost of the converter boxes for the viewers.
It's like paying (but less than market rate) for land seized by eminent domain.
The origin of property rights is making use of and improvements on previously unowned property in the expectation that you can then continue to do so. By that definition, the broadcasters and the viewers had a property right in the spectrum previously used for analog broadcast TV from which they've been evicted by the government for its own profit. So it's reasonable for them to expect payment for their loss and trouble.
Too much graphic sex and foul language.
You didn't read the graphic novel, did you?
Given what Watchmen was about and how it was constructed you couldn't make it "family friendly" without destroying it.
I wonder how often they do that?
In the Italian part ? Probably all the time.
In the German part ? Hell, no. There are rules ...
By the way: I understand that Benito Mussolini didn't really make the trains run on time. Instead he made the papers SAY that he made the trains run on time.
Fascist efficiency at its best.
The US murder rate is about 5.9 per 100,000. It hasn't been at 9 per 100,000 in a number of years. The UK's is about 1.4 per 100,000.
The US counts a murder when there's a body and foul play is suspected. The UK counts a murder when there's a conviction.
Japan's is about 0.5 per 100,000.
When a father of five kills his kids, wife, and himself, Japan counts seven suicides, the US counts six murders and a suicide. (Try comparing the sum of the murder and suicide rates in both countries to see whether it's mathematically possible that the US has a lower rate if they were counted the same.)
The murder victimization rate of US citizens of UK descent is lower than that of UK citizens. Ditto for US citizens of African descent vs. Africans, US citizens of Japanese descent vs. Japanese citizens, and for several other regions of origin. (Allowing immigration of people from more violent cultures and letting them keep their cultures until they voluntarily adopt another has the downside of raising the average level of violence - though fortunately {for others} the violence occurs mainly among the groups in question rather than across group boundaries.)
When comparing death rates from murder and drawing conclusions about culture, don't forget to include deaths from war and genocide (including euphemisms like "sectarian violence" and "ethnic cleansing").