There's two gaps in that logic. It suggests that all approaches are good, which they obviously aren't. And it assumes that the one already discussed, of deleting the key of an encrypted drive isn't completely sufficient, which is is. AES 256 is unbreakable within the projected lifespan of the universe.
Do you not understand the demarcation problem? Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?
I'm afraid your problem is that you are having to try and argue your opinion that falsifiability should be an essential part of the scientific method, because it isn't. If it was, you could supply the evidence that is was. And you can't.
And since it isn't an essential part of the scientific method, your one and only objection to AGW is worthless.
You have your entire concept of liberty, and of the constitution, exactly backwards.
It;s clearly different from yours. But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.
Should every new concept, innovation, invention, tool, technique, strategy, and technology be prohibited by default? What the hell is wrong with you?
What the hell is the matter with you, asking a question, and then assuming an answer. A WRONG answer.
No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.
Drones come into the category of the tragedy of the commons. Deli slicers don't. That being said for different reasons, there are plenty of regulations applying to deli slicers.
And in the case at hand, picture two people standing right next to each other. Each has their hands on the controls of a 4-pound plastic quadcopter carrying a GoPro.
Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.
As to the distinction between private use and commercial use, this distinction applies in other areas too, such as using a car to take people where they ask. If you are doing it for free, or nothing more than fuel cost split, no problem. If you are doing it commercially then you tend to require a permit.
You seem to believe you own the airspace over your land.
The government has control of the airspace above your property "above minimal safe altitudes of flight". So by definition, if a drone can safely fly there, it's in the government's control, not yours.
What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?
What's the risk of a box of electronics, possibly with cargo, falling out of the sky?
Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders
Just? Will the system scale? And in what way will it stop faulty drones from falling out of the sky?
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.
Yes, it was a dream or an idea. It was never a reality, never. It was simply a tale told by rich people to poor people to make them believe that their position as their own fault, rather than the exploitation it really was. A tale to get them to work hard for promise of rewards in the future which rarely transpire, rather than rewards now. A myth that the people with the money got it by working hard.
So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.
I'm pretty sure the "regulation is good" crowd are only talking about good regulations. They are not an equal and opposite side to the libertarians who are not simply against bad regulations but all regulations. (Except for the ones that they feel protect them personally.)
This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs.
The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic
Drones are air traffic.
And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety.
For sure there's a safety angle to drone regulation. A toy drone probably weighs a few ounces, but commercial uses of drones will include much heavier vehicles. There's Amazon's plans, plus the existing illegal use by smugglers that show the way that's going to go.
But there's also the intrusiveness aspect. Sunbathers may not want their gardens overflying, nobody wants a drone hovering outside their bedroom window.
Drones are certainly not something that some be free from regulations.
But the operation of drones needs to be consistent across all uses.
Why? You go on to promote commercial drone use, so it seems unlikely that banning of hobby use would satisfy you.
A distinction can be drawn and so there's no reason not to. Hobby use is likely to remain low, with a small number of people perhaps flying for an hour or two a week. Commercial use on the other hand is likely to be far more pervasive and intrusive. Better to assume they are not allowed and grant specific permissions for uses where the gain to society is seen to outweigh the costs.
Who told you that the coders who wrote OpenSSL were computer scientists?
I'm not talking about coding. It's hardware encryption. Once the key has been overwritten with another key, nothing is going to unencrypt that data. Nothing.
But just like the Macintosh vs Wintel battles of the 80s-90s, the cheaper substitutes will tend to win out over the long run in mind and marketshare as the lower cost devices gain in quality
If that were true, Commodore would have won, not the PC. PCs were expensive back then. Not as expensive as Macs but far more expensive than PET/C64/Amiga.
The hard part for Apple is to keep churning out super innovative products like the original Macintosh, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, and maybe the iWatch-or-whatever-they'll-call-it.
Not really. None of those have been the very first of their category. Apple's secret is hard work following a particular set of design principles, not lucky flashes of inspiration.
Slashdot Mirror
There's two gaps in that logic. It suggests that all approaches are good, which they obviously aren't. And it assumes that the one already discussed, of deleting the key of an encrypted drive isn't completely sufficient, which is is. AES 256 is unbreakable within the projected lifespan of the universe.
Do you not understand the demarcation problem?
Do you not understand that without the requirement of falsifiability, you allow things like astrology and intelligent design to be considered "science"?
I'm afraid your problem is that you are having to try and argue your opinion that falsifiability should be an essential part of the scientific method, because it isn't. If it was, you could supply the evidence that is was. And you can't.
And since it isn't an essential part of the scientific method, your one and only objection to AGW is worthless.
To spec? You're suggesting that they accidentally included multiple registers for the private key, and don't reuse the same one?
Interface with software? No. The encryption is fully in hardware. No software can touch the private key, by design.
I'm afraid you're at conspiracy theory levels of paranoia. Or simply are worried about that scary thing that you don't understand.
Liberty to cause a nuisance is not a good thing. Most of America's problems comes down to not realising that liberty is not an absolute.
So you still have no evidence for your claim falsifiability s a necessary part of science. Let's face it, you know full well your claim was wrong.
Falsifiability is quite obviously the answer to the demarcation problem
That's Karl Popper's angle. Which does precisely zero to make it a part of the scientific method.
You have your entire concept of liberty, and of the constitution, exactly backwards.
It;s clearly different from yours. But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.
Should every new concept, innovation, invention, tool, technique, strategy, and technology be prohibited by default? What the hell is wrong with you?
What the hell is the matter with you, asking a question, and then assuming an answer. A WRONG answer.
No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.
Drones come into the category of the tragedy of the commons. Deli slicers don't. That being said for different reasons, there are plenty of regulations applying to deli slicers.
And in the case at hand, picture two people standing right next to each other. Each has their hands on the controls of a 4-pound plastic quadcopter carrying a GoPro.
Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.
As to the distinction between private use and commercial use, this distinction applies in other areas too, such as using a car to take people where they ask. If you are doing it for free, or nothing more than fuel cost split, no problem. If you are doing it commercially then you tend to require a permit.
That's not "above your property".
You seem to believe you own the airspace over your land.
The government has control of the airspace above your property "above minimal safe altitudes of flight". So by definition, if a drone can safely fly there, it's in the government's control, not yours.
What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?
What's the risk of a box of electronics, possibly with cargo, falling out of the sky?
Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders
Just? Will the system scale? And in what way will it stop faulty drones from falling out of the sky?
As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.
A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.
The American dream was the idea
Yes, it was a dream or an idea. It was never a reality, never. It was simply a tale told by rich people to poor people to make them believe that their position as their own fault, rather than the exploitation it really was. A tale to get them to work hard for promise of rewards in the future which rarely transpire, rather than rewards now. A myth that the people with the money got it by working hard.
So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.
There was no logic in that statement whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure the "regulation is good" crowd are only talking about good regulations. They are not an equal and opposite side to the libertarians who are not simply against bad regulations but all regulations. (Except for the ones that they feel protect them personally.)
It is common for the the movie industry to shoot scenes from drones.
Your assertion doesn't appear to be true.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/04/...
This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs.
The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic
Drones are air traffic.
And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety.
For sure there's a safety angle to drone regulation. A toy drone probably weighs a few ounces, but commercial uses of drones will include much heavier vehicles. There's Amazon's plans, plus the existing illegal use by smugglers that show the way that's going to go.
But there's also the intrusiveness aspect. Sunbathers may not want their gardens overflying, nobody wants a drone hovering outside their bedroom window.
Drones are certainly not something that some be free from regulations.
But the operation of drones needs to be consistent across all uses.
Why? You go on to promote commercial drone use, so it seems unlikely that banning of hobby use would satisfy you.
A distinction can be drawn and so there's no reason not to. Hobby use is likely to remain low, with a small number of people perhaps flying for an hour or two a week. Commercial use on the other hand is likely to be far more pervasive and intrusive. Better to assume they are not allowed and grant specific permissions for uses where the gain to society is seen to outweigh the costs.
So, according to you
Nope, I never said anything of the kind.
Still waiting for you to provide evidence that falsifiability is a necessary part of science, and not just a proposal by the philosopher Karl Popper.
You can't of course.
You're wasting your time with youtube links by the way. I'm not going to waste the time it takes to watch them. You're not worth it.
If you'd like to assert that falsifiability isn't required
You're the one doing the asserting that a falsifiable statement *is* required for science. I'm not required to prove a negative.
It is not and never has been a requirement for science. It's a belief of the philosopher Karl Popper, and nothing more.
The first smartphone was the Nokia Communicator. 1996.
the base requirement for science - the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
So you keep incorrectly saying. Karl Popper did not define science.
"less talk, more experimental proof"
Where's yours?
Why are you constantly trolling climate discussions when you've been proved wrong so many times? No one bothers wasting their time on you any more.
Gotcha. Security shouldn't be layered or redundant. As long you've got one method that should be secure your good right.
There's a difference between relying on code and relying on hardware encryption.
Are you really willing to put all your trust in truecrypt
Good lord no. That's code.
That's not religion. That's common sense.
Science often proves common sense wrong.
But that's a false choice. There is a 3rd option... do both.
There's a fourth option: do both of those, then get a witch-doctor to shake some chicken bones at it.
Going through pointless rituals, just in case, and because it won't do any harm, is religion, not computer science.
Who told you that the coders who wrote OpenSSL were computer scientists?
I'm not talking about coding. It's hardware encryption. Once the key has been overwritten with another key, nothing is going to unencrypt that data. Nothing.
But just like the Macintosh vs Wintel battles of the 80s-90s, the cheaper substitutes will tend to win out over the long run in mind and marketshare as the lower cost devices gain in quality
If that were true, Commodore would have won, not the PC. PCs were expensive back then. Not as expensive as Macs but far more expensive than PET/C64/Amiga.
The hard part for Apple is to keep churning out super innovative products like the original Macintosh, Mac OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, and maybe the iWatch-or-whatever-they'll-call-it.
Not really. None of those have been the very first of their category. Apple's secret is hard work following a particular set of design principles, not lucky flashes of inspiration.