So your theory is that until now, the Internet wasn't important enough for government regulations and that government regulations are what keep companies from doing "all sorts of evil shit".
Your contradicts itself, because it turns out that until now, companies haven't been doing "all sorts of evil shit" using the internet. In fact, they've managed to turn the Internet into something "important" without any of those regulations. Funny how your theory doesn't match reality, eh?
So how about instead of just telling people you disagree with to "stfu", you attempt some sort of actual argument in response?
Government "protections for consumers" tend to just be cover for established industry interests trying to prevent anyone else from coming along and innovating to compete with them. They end up locking in the status quo and preventing things like the Internet from becoming "important" in the first place.
Well, considering I've been using the Internet since before it was even called the Internet, I think I'll pass on your requirement to "read up" on it. I lived through it, kid.
The Internet is a collection of autonomous networks. Some of those are owned/run by government agencies, the vast majority are owned run by private enterprises. Saying the government built their part means they can govern their part, it in no way implies they are magically entitled to govern the parts built and owned by non-government entities. Please look up autonomous in the dictionary.
You claim because companies used public rights of way for cabling, therefore they have to pay the price of forever bowing down to the government's rules. You're right, they did already pay a price for that. They already made agreements for that. You can't come back later and say, "We're unilaterally changing the terms of our agreement, cause some anonymous coward on/. says we should."
You should hear yourself outside your echo chamber. We should nationalize telecommunications to ensure there is competition? Having the government control something is exactly the opposite of competition.
So if an ISP violates net neutrality, like deep packet inspection, blocking ports, injecting data, prioritizing or blocking specific traffic, it is violating one or more of the protocols or standards.
Really? Which Internet standard RFC covers net neutrality as enforced by the FCC?
When did the the government telling people how to interconnect their network and how to manage traffic on their network and even what to allow on their network become a key moral value of the internet? Notice how I keep saying "their network", as if they built it, own it and should be able to use it (or not use it) as they want?
Yeah, who actually thought the cost of the source water was a significant expense for bottled water?
The major costs are the marketing, bottling, distribution and the purification. Water itself, except in certain drought-prone areas, tends to be really cheap.
Doesn't have any effect in the United States. The USSC, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, concluded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."
Not only is world-wide median income increasing, but real wealth (which isn't the same thing, although correlated) is increasing. How many people in third world countries had mobile computers 20 years ago compared to now? Even global income inequality is falling.
You're ignoring reality. People in general all over the world are getting wealthier and wealthier year after year. It doesn't matter how much wealth someone else has, it matters to an individual how much wealth they have.
The more efficient we're able to create wealth, the more wealth everyone ends up with. Work isn't just "demanded", it's also offered. There isn't a single person on the planet (even a Billionaire) who has zero demand for additional work done by someone to benefit them. Even Soros and Koch can still think of plenty of work to spend money on. Look up the economic concept of marginal utility.
You may want a pony and not be able to afford it right now, because ponies are very labor intensive to raise and take care of, but if a swarm of cheap robots took care of ponies, then with the same wealth you have now, you might now be able to afford that pony. I guarantee that 200 years ago, someone similarly situated in life as you are now wasn't able to afford an automobile, air conditioning or to post on slashdot, but you make it sound like it's black magic and not technological progress (like automation) which results in you likely being able to right now.
Good news, then. People in general's desires are virtually unlimited and there is literally an unlimited amount of work out there for someone to do once it becomes economically efficient to do it because other jobs have been automated away.
Once we've built things to take advantage of even just this solar system's contents and everyone in the world has all the services they can use, then get back to us on your anthropomorphing of "the economy" to not need people.
People need other people to do things for them. We call that trade in a market. Anything which makes that easier or makes it so that people can do more for them with less resources is a good thing. Automation which makes things people purchase less expensive to make and distribute means they are able to purchase more of those things, not less.
Actually, the election evidence shows that the GOP absorbed the Peripheral South and gained in the South primarily from the importing transplants into the region, not by converting Dixiecrats and Democratic Party KKK leaders like Robert Byrd into Republicans. The racist Democrats in the Solid South primarily stayed Democrats. The GOP got more votes from the non-racists, both among the existing population and from immigrants from other States to turn the South into their voting block, beginning with the least (not most) racist States. The details have been written up in many places, but here’s one I found with a quick Google search if you’re looking for more details.
To quote that article in relation to the myth you keep trying to spread: "Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These "immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90s than they had earlier?
In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South."
Or as the NY Times put it: "In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
It's in one of the articles linked in the original summary, but the summary link said $800M while the actual article says $800M paid from rate payers and an additional $150M they are writing off and didn't collect from rate payers yet.
As for the reactor, apparently Westinghouse _could_ supply a reactor to meet the NRC's standards, because the NRC ended up approving the construction and operating permit in 2016, 7 years after they were ready to build and 3 years after they finally gave up because market conditions had changed. I doubt they made major revisions to the permit application years after they decided to no longer pursue building it.
Re: " It would be interesting to know what Duke claims those delays were"
They tried to start construction in 2009, after all the State-level approvals were already received, but the NRC hadn't approved their construction and operating permit yet.
In 2013, they gave up on building Levy.
In October, 2016, the NRC finally approved their construction and operating permits for Levy.
Was there some big change in the permit applications or in what they were going to do which finally managed NRC approval? Nope, they had already given up on the project. It was just the regulators finally getting around to finishing their job of reviewing the application.
They spent $950 million during the initial regulatory process (without any construction happening yet!) and charged $800 million of that to their customers and have now written off the other $150 million as a loss. So it's not like they made money on trying to built this plant, Duke actually lost money and the ratepayers lost even more. All because it took the NRC seven extra years to finish the approval process, because otherwise they would have started construction back in 2009.
Regarding your #2: "2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements."
Allow me to point out that after RTFA, this power company spent $950 million on trying to get Levy built and never even made it to the point where they could begin construction. Why didn't they start construction? Because even after spending almost a Billion dollars, they couldn't get the NRC to let them start the excavation work. Yep, couldn't get a construction permit from the Federal regulators in 2009 when they were supposed to start and already had State-level site certification and approval. They gave up on building Levy in 2013. The NRC finally approved their application and gave them a license to start construction in October, 2016.
So yeah, over regulation does seriously impact new nuclear construction, as evidenced by this specific case, among others.
The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.
The question is, what will people choose to do in order to maximize their effort to benefit others the most (which is what workers get paid for, benefiting others in some way). Based on this article, the answer to that will shift for some people yet again and it will be away from sewing clothes and towards something else, now that sewing clothes can be done more efficiently with more automation.
For how many centuries do Luddite theories need to continue to be disproved before people will stop believing in those fallacies?
<Movie Plot>The stated purpose to their boss was to be able to track all the illegal transactions out there by controlling the currency and making it one with perfect tracking capabilities. The real purpose is that they all plan to cash out their original stash of coins, split the money and disappear.</Movie Plot>
Yeah, the study appears to naively assume all online products, sellers and reviews are completely legitimate and that reviews solely indicate a statistical level of quality and aren't influenced by other factors.
Any product with tons of verified reviews means at least that the product has survived and sold enough to gather those reviews. That's an endorsement it's very difficult to fake.
Now if they actually purchased and tested products themselves to determine which was better as part of the study, they might have a decent conclusion, but as all they did was make a statistical assumption then go judge people's rational behavior against their assumption, the study's conclusion is way off. They're trying to make a case about statistical uncertainty and they refuse to believe results based on people's actual experience with purchasing products online.
This is a signal to noise issue. People are ignoring other factors and trusting lots of reviews because they're searching for the signal within the influenced-by-seller noise.
Based on actual history, the most likely result of your desired regulation of the market would be that they require everyone to buy only Sonos-style equipment and no longer allow any alternatives.
Because the large corporation has real money on the line and "can act as a single entity, while consumers are sufficiently segmented that in most cases coordination is unlikely." (To quote you.)
So yeah, instead of giving the government the power to decide based on the self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats what type of sound system I am allowed to purchase, I'd just as soon make my own decisions about what I want. The difference is that no one is forcing you to buy something from Sonos right now. They have to earn your business, right up until the government gets involved in it.
The army already builds (contracts out the building of) their own drones.
The micro-UAVs, the ones closest to a DJI ~(4.5 lbs), cost the Army (These are the inexpensive ones) $35,000 each for a Raven RQ-11B. A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma (6 lbs, heavier battery, flies longer).
So yeah, for the price of one Raven, you could only afford to buy 25 DJI Phantom 4 Pro drones. The Raven can go farther faster, the Phantom has a better camera and can avoid obstacles on it's own and circle/follow a target on its own, so they have complementary uses, but one is obviously way cheaper than the other.
Wow, it's like you didn't actually read my comment, nor the cited links, wherein the specific solution to the tragedy of the commons was revealed to be private property rights in the commons so that someone had a vested interest in protecting their own part of it rather than just over using the "common" resource.
i.e. you can't have a tragedy of the commons without having a commons....
And I'm not "assuming" anything, the theory is sound because when it's been used it has actually worked, unlike your apparent idea of just trying to create regulations of the commons enforced by the government, because the government and the user's incentive's don't match in that situation, which is why the commons becomes a tragedy.
The free market does solve this. The best known solution to the tragedy of an open-access commons is to create property rights, then get out of the way and allow the free market to work.
Notice that nobody thinks we're going to run out of cows or chickens anytime soon in the world, yet they are slaughtered for more and more food every year!
So how about we continue to try more of the solutions which have actually worked to avert these types of fishing conflicts?
It shouldn't shock anyone that this article, written by the Coast Guard, happens to emphasize that by-the-way the Coast Guard should be given lots more ships and money to enforce regulations as the solution to the outlined problem. Next up, we'll read about how the Air Force believes we're going to need lots more air planes and pilots and support staff for the next big global conflict.
A big part of the problem is that when you talk to someone who is blindly pro-vaccine or even a typical Doctor, they usually show themselves as clueless about the subject. All they can do is repeat the "recommendations" without having any knowledge of what's behind them.
So it's not a very convincing experience for the anti-vaccine people they are talking to. If you don't know what you're talking about, but try to come across as if you do, you hurt your side's credibility. Once someone has talked to dozens of people who are that way, then they naturally start to form a stereotype about them.
Personally, I've done the research. I wasn't vaccinated as a child to follow the official "schedule" and my kids aren't either. I have a family history with negative vaccine reactions, so we've learned to be extremely careful. We've had some vaccines, but, for example, you're way more likely to have a negative result in the United States than a positive one from getting the polio vaccine, so we won't be doing that one. If we lived in many other countries where Polio is still an issue, that'd be different.
For my kids, it's a simple matter of the odds of serious damage/death from getting a specific vaccine vs. the odds off damage/death from the disease from not getting it. If you don't actually look at the statistics (and almost no one does, for some reason), then you're just a blind follower, on either side of the issue.
And before you start trying to lecture me about herd immunity, you should first research what percentage of the adult population which were immunized as children have had the required boosters and what percentage have had their immunizations wear off. The answer may shock you. When's the last time you had a full set of boosters yourself?
Yeah, I think what you're missing is that the whole report was published during the normal public comment period 7 months ago and is still available from https://archive.org/details/CS... . You can't "leak" a document 7 months after it was published publicly with the intent for everyone to read it and credibly claim that there is an evil conspiracy to suppress it ever getting out.
Doesn't this appear to be a lot of confirmation bias on the part of the NY Times reporters when they go on and on about the supposed future Trump Administration conspiracy to never release a document which has been released for 7 months already?
They setup a server with a service configured to allow connecting on a default port and giving unencrypted/passwordless access to the entire file system.
Yes, this is the definition of "doing it wrong".
Any even minimal attempt to secure the server and service via OS hardening and/or taking the 2 minutes to configure rsync/rsyncd to use ssh as a transport would've prevented this issue. As rsyncd has used ssh by default for a while now, either they deliberately turned off all safeguards, or else they are running a _really_ old version of *nix which they haven't kept updated.
Slashdot Mirror
So your theory is that until now, the Internet wasn't important enough for government regulations and that government regulations are what keep companies from doing "all sorts of evil shit".
Your contradicts itself, because it turns out that until now, companies haven't been doing "all sorts of evil shit" using the internet. In fact, they've managed to turn the Internet into something "important" without any of those regulations. Funny how your theory doesn't match reality, eh?
So how about instead of just telling people you disagree with to "stfu", you attempt some sort of actual argument in response?
Government "protections for consumers" tend to just be cover for established industry interests trying to prevent anyone else from coming along and innovating to compete with them. They end up locking in the status quo and preventing things like the Internet from becoming "important" in the first place.
Well, considering I've been using the Internet since before it was even called the Internet, I think I'll pass on your requirement to "read up" on it. I lived through it, kid.
The Internet is a collection of autonomous networks. Some of those are owned/run by government agencies, the vast majority are owned run by private enterprises. Saying the government built their part means they can govern their part, it in no way implies they are magically entitled to govern the parts built and owned by non-government entities. Please look up autonomous in the dictionary.
You claim because companies used public rights of way for cabling, therefore they have to pay the price of forever bowing down to the government's rules. You're right, they did already pay a price for that. They already made agreements for that. You can't come back later and say, "We're unilaterally changing the terms of our agreement, cause some anonymous coward on /. says we should."
You should hear yourself outside your echo chamber. We should nationalize telecommunications to ensure there is competition? Having the government control something is exactly the opposite of competition.
Really? Which Internet standard RFC covers net neutrality as enforced by the FCC?
When did the the government telling people how to interconnect their network and how to manage traffic on their network and even what to allow on their network become a key moral value of the internet? Notice how I keep saying "their network", as if they built it, own it and should be able to use it (or not use it) as they want?
Yeah, who actually thought the cost of the source water was a significant expense for bottled water?
The major costs are the marketing, bottling, distribution and the purification. Water itself, except in certain drought-prone areas, tends to be really cheap.
Doesn't have any effect in the United States. The USSC, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, concluded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."
Not only is world-wide median income increasing, but real wealth (which isn't the same thing, although correlated) is increasing. How many people in third world countries had mobile computers 20 years ago compared to now? Even global income inequality is falling.
Do you have a citation which says otherwise?
You're ignoring reality. People in general all over the world are getting wealthier and wealthier year after year. It doesn't matter how much wealth someone else has, it matters to an individual how much wealth they have.
The more efficient we're able to create wealth, the more wealth everyone ends up with. Work isn't just "demanded", it's also offered. There isn't a single person on the planet (even a Billionaire) who has zero demand for additional work done by someone to benefit them. Even Soros and Koch can still think of plenty of work to spend money on. Look up the economic concept of marginal utility.
You may want a pony and not be able to afford it right now, because ponies are very labor intensive to raise and take care of, but if a swarm of cheap robots took care of ponies, then with the same wealth you have now, you might now be able to afford that pony. I guarantee that 200 years ago, someone similarly situated in life as you are now wasn't able to afford an automobile, air conditioning or to post on slashdot, but you make it sound like it's black magic and not technological progress (like automation) which results in you likely being able to right now.
Good news, then. People in general's desires are virtually unlimited and there is literally an unlimited amount of work out there for someone to do once it becomes economically efficient to do it because other jobs have been automated away.
Once we've built things to take advantage of even just this solar system's contents and everyone in the world has all the services they can use, then get back to us on your anthropomorphing of "the economy" to not need people.
People need other people to do things for them. We call that trade in a market. Anything which makes that easier or makes it so that people can do more for them with less resources is a good thing. Automation which makes things people purchase less expensive to make and distribute means they are able to purchase more of those things, not less.
But hey, Luddites gonna luddite, amirright?
Actually, the election evidence shows that the GOP absorbed the Peripheral South and gained in the South primarily from the importing transplants into the region, not by converting Dixiecrats and Democratic Party KKK leaders like Robert Byrd into Republicans. The racist Democrats in the Solid South primarily stayed Democrats. The GOP got more votes from the non-racists, both among the existing population and from immigrants from other States to turn the South into their voting block, beginning with the least (not most) racist States. The details have been written up in many places, but here’s one I found with a quick Google search if you’re looking for more details.
To quote that article in relation to the myth you keep trying to spread:
"Starting in the 1950s, the South attracted millions of Midwesterners, Northeasterners, and other transplants. These "immigrants" identified themselves as Republicans at higher rates than native whites. In the 1980s, up to a quarter of self-declared Republicans in Texas appear to have been such immigrants. Furthermore, research consistently shows that identification with the GOP is stronger among the South's younger rather than older white voters, and that each cohort has also became more Republican with time. Do we really believe immigrants were more racist than native Southerners, and that younger Southerners identified more with white solidarity than did their elders, and that all cohorts did so more by the 1980s and '90s than they had earlier?
In sum, the GOP's Southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the most stagnant parts of the Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South."
Or as the NY Times put it:
"In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t."
It's in one of the articles linked in the original summary, but the summary link said $800M while the actual article says $800M paid from rate payers and an additional $150M they are writing off and didn't collect from rate payers yet.
As for the reactor, apparently Westinghouse _could_ supply a reactor to meet the NRC's standards, because the NRC ended up approving the construction and operating permit in 2016, 7 years after they were ready to build and 3 years after they finally gave up because market conditions had changed. I doubt they made major revisions to the permit application years after they decided to no longer pursue building it.
Re: " It would be interesting to know what Duke claims those delays were"
They tried to start construction in 2009, after all the State-level approvals were already received, but the NRC hadn't approved their construction and operating permit yet.
In 2013, they gave up on building Levy.
In October, 2016, the NRC finally approved their construction and operating permits for Levy.
Was there some big change in the permit applications or in what they were going to do which finally managed NRC approval? Nope, they had already given up on the project. It was just the regulators finally getting around to finishing their job of reviewing the application.
They spent $950 million during the initial regulatory process (without any construction happening yet!) and charged $800 million of that to their customers and have now written off the other $150 million as a loss. So it's not like they made money on trying to built this plant, Duke actually lost money and the ratepayers lost even more. All because it took the NRC seven extra years to finish the approval process, because otherwise they would have started construction back in 2009.
Regarding your #2: "2) The ridiculous cost of nuclear is due to extreme overregulation and safety requirements."
Allow me to point out that after RTFA, this power company spent $950 million on trying to get Levy built and never even made it to the point where they could begin construction. Why didn't they start construction? Because even after spending almost a Billion dollars, they couldn't get the NRC to let them start the excavation work. Yep, couldn't get a construction permit from the Federal regulators in 2009 when they were supposed to start and already had State-level site certification and approval. They gave up on building Levy in 2013. The NRC finally approved their application and gave them a license to start construction in October, 2016.
So yeah, over regulation does seriously impact new nuclear construction, as evidenced by this specific case, among others.
The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.
The question is, what will people choose to do in order to maximize their effort to benefit others the most (which is what workers get paid for, benefiting others in some way). Based on this article, the answer to that will shift for some people yet again and it will be away from sewing clothes and towards something else, now that sewing clothes can be done more efficiently with more automation.
For how many centuries do Luddite theories need to continue to be disproved before people will stop believing in those fallacies?
<Movie Plot>The stated purpose to their boss was to be able to track all the illegal transactions out there by controlling the currency and making it one with perfect tracking capabilities. The real purpose is that they all plan to cash out their original stash of coins, split the money and disappear.</Movie Plot>
Yeah, the study appears to naively assume all online products, sellers and reviews are completely legitimate and that reviews solely indicate a statistical level of quality and aren't influenced by other factors.
Any product with tons of verified reviews means at least that the product has survived and sold enough to gather those reviews. That's an endorsement it's very difficult to fake.
Now if they actually purchased and tested products themselves to determine which was better as part of the study, they might have a decent conclusion, but as all they did was make a statistical assumption then go judge people's rational behavior against their assumption, the study's conclusion is way off. They're trying to make a case about statistical uncertainty and they refuse to believe results based on people's actual experience with purchasing products online.
This is a signal to noise issue. People are ignoring other factors and trusting lots of reviews because they're searching for the signal within the influenced-by-seller noise.
Based on actual history, the most likely result of your desired regulation of the market would be that they require everyone to buy only Sonos-style equipment and no longer allow any alternatives.
Because the large corporation has real money on the line and "can act as a single entity, while consumers are sufficiently segmented that in most cases coordination is unlikely." (To quote you.)
So yeah, instead of giving the government the power to decide based on the self-interest of politicians and bureaucrats what type of sound system I am allowed to purchase, I'd just as soon make my own decisions about what I want. The difference is that no one is forcing you to buy something from Sonos right now. They have to earn your business, right up until the government gets involved in it.
The army already builds (contracts out the building of) their own drones.
The micro-UAVs, the ones closest to a DJI ~(4.5 lbs), cost the Army (These are the inexpensive ones) $35,000 each for a Raven RQ-11B. A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma (6 lbs, heavier battery, flies longer).
So yeah, for the price of one Raven, you could only afford to buy 25 DJI Phantom 4 Pro drones. The Raven can go farther faster, the Phantom has a better camera and can avoid obstacles on it's own and circle/follow a target on its own, so they have complementary uses, but one is obviously way cheaper than the other.
Wow, it's like you didn't actually read my comment, nor the cited links, wherein the specific solution to the tragedy of the commons was revealed to be private property rights in the commons so that someone had a vested interest in protecting their own part of it rather than just over using the "common" resource.
i.e. you can't have a tragedy of the commons without having a commons....
And I'm not "assuming" anything, the theory is sound because when it's been used it has actually worked, unlike your apparent idea of just trying to create regulations of the commons enforced by the government, because the government and the user's incentive's don't match in that situation, which is why the commons becomes a tragedy.
You didn't read the links, did you? The ones which talked about the International arrangements creating the private property rights...
The free market does solve this. The best known solution to the tragedy of an open-access commons is to create property rights, then get out of the way and allow the free market to work.
As that's a solution which has already been successfully implemented several times to solve this exact fishing problem with trade-able Individual Vessal Quotas (IVQ). It's also been used to solve similar wildlife/game animals issues by selling the animals to private owners.
Notice that nobody thinks we're going to run out of cows or chickens anytime soon in the world, yet they are slaughtered for more and more food every year!
So how about we continue to try more of the solutions which have actually worked to avert these types of fishing conflicts?
It shouldn't shock anyone that this article, written by the Coast Guard, happens to emphasize that by-the-way the Coast Guard should be given lots more ships and money to enforce regulations as the solution to the outlined problem. Next up, we'll read about how the Air Force believes we're going to need lots more air planes and pilots and support staff for the next big global conflict.
Even worse, this is already being used to track incidents of "intimidate, harass, humiliate", i.e. not actual crimes.
And then there is how the ProPublica reporters are conveniently now relying on bogus SPLC classifications to work towards blacklisting/removing Internet utilities from bloggers they don't like, because obviously someone who is anti-Muslim-extremist terrorism should have their Paypal account cancelled, etc... but ISIS? They're ok with those guys as not "hateful".
A big part of the problem is that when you talk to someone who is blindly pro-vaccine or even a typical Doctor, they usually show themselves as clueless about the subject. All they can do is repeat the "recommendations" without having any knowledge of what's behind them.
So it's not a very convincing experience for the anti-vaccine people they are talking to. If you don't know what you're talking about, but try to come across as if you do, you hurt your side's credibility. Once someone has talked to dozens of people who are that way, then they naturally start to form a stereotype about them.
Personally, I've done the research. I wasn't vaccinated as a child to follow the official "schedule" and my kids aren't either. I have a family history with negative vaccine reactions, so we've learned to be extremely careful. We've had some vaccines, but, for example, you're way more likely to have a negative result in the United States than a positive one from getting the polio vaccine, so we won't be doing that one. If we lived in many other countries where Polio is still an issue, that'd be different.
For my kids, it's a simple matter of the odds of serious damage/death from getting a specific vaccine vs. the odds off damage/death from the disease from not getting it. If you don't actually look at the statistics (and almost no one does, for some reason), then you're just a blind follower, on either side of the issue.
And before you start trying to lecture me about herd immunity, you should first research what percentage of the adult population which were immunized as children have had the required boosters and what percentage have had their immunizations wear off. The answer may shock you. When's the last time you had a full set of boosters yourself?
Yeah, I think what you're missing is that the whole report was published during the normal public comment period 7 months ago and is still available from https://archive.org/details/CS... . You can't "leak" a document 7 months after it was published publicly with the intent for everyone to read it and credibly claim that there is an evil conspiracy to suppress it ever getting out.
Doesn't this appear to be a lot of confirmation bias on the part of the NY Times reporters when they go on and on about the supposed future Trump Administration conspiracy to never release a document which has been released for 7 months already?
At the risk of replying to myself, I just went and looked and rsync has had using ssh as the default config for 13 years now...
They setup a server with a service configured to allow connecting on a default port and giving unencrypted/passwordless access to the entire file system.
Yes, this is the definition of "doing it wrong".
Any even minimal attempt to secure the server and service via OS hardening and/or taking the 2 minutes to configure rsync/rsyncd to use ssh as a transport would've prevented this issue. As rsyncd has used ssh by default for a while now, either they deliberately turned off all safeguards, or else they are running a _really_ old version of *nix which they haven't kept updated.