> The companies who make decisions based on bad data will be more likely to fail
The companies providing the data, selling it, have very little reason to care. They tend to be small, fraudulent operations that _do not care_ what happens as long as they get the first or even second check. Simply because a client fails is not a compelling reason for the next fraudulent company not to avoid the business.
I'm afraid that the "fraud will be forced out of the market by competition" optimism is one of the notable errors of Libertarian politics. In the real world, fraud and abuse are commonplace and can be quite effective, even if only in the short term.
The ISP's have many reasons to _host_, if not actively foster false traffic. They are paid on the basis of traffic, and more traffic enhances _their_ market value. It's much like the USPS approach to junk mail, and ISP approaches to spam. The recipients _loathe_ the false traffic. The businesses carrying it try to strike a balance between maximum profit of selling bandwidth, advertising the size of their service, payment for websites, overwhelmed customers abandoning them for services with better filters, and the bottom line costs for servers, bandwidth, and security.
In the case of simplistic filtering, such as IP based filters, a few legitimate mails or web access requests from clients behind a banned NAT address can anger customers and cost business contracts. I've had to cope with this from every side myself. Thorough and aggressive filters risk cutting off legitimate traffic, while casual filters that guarantee all delivery can easily flood the recipient. The lessons apply to web traffic as well as they've applied to email.
My workplace pays for my phone, in order for me to receive email on the MS Exchange based system. I access my personal email with a distinct application, precisely to avoid conflating them or confusing them, and avoid personal applications like FaceBook or LinkedIn except for work activities. If I gave up the phone, it could mean losing the job, since I am frequently on call or a high leval escalation point for technical issues.
When I was much younger, I certainly worked various low wage jobs. They kept food in the house and the utilities running while I studied or built up some resources to move. If I may, "the future" for such jobs is something to develop on your personal time, not in the workplace, though there are some useful skills to learn even in the lowest wage work.
There does not seem to be power, water, food, or other public infrastructure to support the working poor in those highly urban areas. This happens in other cities, as well.
I hesitate to name the labs I've dealt with to preserve my pseudonymous status. I'm willing to say that I've dealt with them on 4 distinct occasions in the last 10 years, simply to report criminal activity I or my colleagues had tracked back to its source, and they did nothing with the information. Their position as the agency to report criminal computer activity actively and refusing to release the evidence to others interferes with other agencies.
I'm afraid I've seen no sign that they "have anything better to do" but accept reports and evidence gathered by others, reports on which they refuse to act, and on occasion take credit for other people's work in which they've interfered until the moment of prosecution.. That they accept reports and evidence but then ignore it actually deters other criminal or civil prosecution,
From personal experience with the FBI's Computer Crime Lab, I'd not give them credit for this action without compelling proof. They've not yet shown they're capable of doing the actual work to block, capture, or prosecute any computer criminals in any of the cases I know of personally. The few crimes listed on their website show no sign that they've done nothing successful except to claim credit for others', and they've passively interfered in every investigation I do know of personally. They accept reports and evidence, they do not act on any of it.
I'm afraid that this "multiple tritium atoms from one nucleus" resembles the recent "search optimization" based marketing plans I've been encountering over the last few years. It relies on a much higher successful return on investment than is likely or even feasible. Based merely on the difficulties of doing chemical extraction of a very small, very chemically active, and _extremely_ radioactive molecule embedded in molten lithium metal or in lithium embedded ceramics seems unlikely to ever work safely or work well, or work well enough to significantly reduce the consumption of raw tritium for the fusion reactor.
Whether the Li-n reaction is exothermic, the energy output is only 25% that of the initial deuterium/tritium fusion reaction. On further thought, the energy of the original fusion wouldn't really be wasted, it will still wind up in the lithium blanket, so I see your point that it could be an energy gain. The energy must go _somewhere_, and it's going into the lithium blanket anyway.
I'm afraid, though, that the actual breeder setups you refer to are not _efficient_. I'm looking right now at the "breeder blanket" designs, and one of them look efficient enough to approach even 50% generation of tritium compared to that expended in the fusion reactor. Do you see any designs that approach even that modest efficiency?
I'd be deeply concerned about Python's support for installing quite random dependency chains from https://www.pypi.org/ to satisfy a need for a Python module. Much as ant, gradle, and maven install untested Java modules from the Internet, and as CPAN installed Perl modules, they brought dependency chains with them that could displace and break cricical functioning code. I recently had to help recover a critical system where a release engineer ran "pip install" as a root user and wound up upgrading critical modules in the operating system's built-in package management software.
There are ways to ameliorate the risks, such as using the "virtualenv" utility to install the modules inside what its own playground. But I'll be very curious to see how Microsoft tries to contain the risk of such upgrades.
They could also engage in the mental gymnastics used to explain BDSM where the "submissive" person is really the "person in control". It seems like the X windows "master/slave" relationship, where the display on your local screen is called the "server" and the program running on the remote computer which you display locally is called the "client". It is completely backwards from the mental model most people use for a program running on one machine, displayed on another machine.
Microsoft has also been known to _steal_ technologies that had a competitive edge. It may be difficult prove the theft of the GUI from Xerox, but the theft of VMS source code and technologies to create the NT kernel was clear. David Cutler and his team took a great deal of copyrighted code and patented technologies and trade secrets with them, from their work on VMS and it's canceled followup projects Mica designed to run on the new Prism hardware. While Intel was stealing Alpha technologies to create the Pentium chip, Microsoft was stealing the core VMS technologies to create NT. The combined theft created the "Wintel" commercial juggernaut and bankrupted DEC. There have been other thefts since then, but I've not personally seen any thefts as thorough and outrageous as those.
With Python integration, I'd be concerned that they'll create incompatible, proprietary aspects in their classic "embreace and extend" approach, where the "extend" part adds unrequested features that break compatibility.
I'm afraid that generating tritium that way costs energy that might otherwise be harvested from the initial reactions. Even if, by a miracle of efficiency, the reactor and the harvesting of tritium from such blankets regenerated as much as 50% of the expended tritium, it would only extend the effective amount of fuel by roughly a factor of two. Bulk supplies of fission reactor generated tritium would still be necessary as a primary fuel source.
Can you find any papers or research that suggest a feasible recovery of tritium that might approach even 1% of the tritium expended? There are many fascinating papers about changing the permeability of metal layers in such a reactor, but _none_ of them seem to describe all o ft he steps of the process, especially with any usable efficiency.
There is not enough fuel. Tritium is very unstable and must be continually produced to provide a fuel source. If you're producing or harvesting enough tritium, you either have a fleet of fission reactors already producing far more energy than fusion reactors can harvest from the tritium byproducts, or you have solar sails collecting tritium and potentially harvesting _vastly_ more solar energy than the tritium can produce.
There are some interesting boron fusion designs, rather than tritium and deuterium, but none have yet proven able to harvest more energy than they consume.
"Never dreamed of" is an incredibly high standard. Science fiction and fantasy exist to reach beyond current limitations, and to inspire ideas to strive for. So many of our outrageous realities were described in fiction, such as private industry surging past government programs to create a space program. That was dreamed of by Robert Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon". The ideas of a poor desert culture with funding from ownership of a critical resource fomenting religious fanaticism and destructive, guerrilla warfare effectively against a larger and more civilized society was described by Frank Herbert in "Dune".
The unimagined or unexpected are not purely techologoical, but social. Lyft and Uber were unexpected. The chemical castration of children to "delay puberty" and "perserve their choice of gender" is unexpected and quite shocking, though fiction described it in the name of planned evolution.
That's why they stole much of the NT kernel from DEC, by hiring David Cutler and his development team. David was one of the core authors of VMS, and the intellectual property theft involved was quite large scale. He and his team brought a great deal of the code with them. The lawsuits of the era were fascinating, and some of them are laid out at https://www.itprotoday.com/com... .
You could use SSH to port-forward an RDP conneciton to the localhost that is otherwise blocked by the firewall. One might also access a CygWin hosted X session. But otherwise, I see no obvious graphical access over the SSH connection.
It's easily tuned to allow authorized_keys to limit access on a key by key basis to specific hostnames, IP addresses, and forced commands by allowing users to manipulate authorized_keys files.
Let's be aware that the server is not the same as the client. There are a number of working clients available, but the server relies on technologies such as forking off distinct copies of the server daemon, especially so that one failed daemon does not disable the service altogether. I'm curious how Microsoft is configuring this to prevent a distributed denial of service attack, and what settings they are using for single-sign-on kerberized connecitons.
Relevant? Absolutely. To claim that " I am not allowed by law to give them certain kinds of feedback or give them swag", however, is a factually incorrect. I'm afraid that it's a kind of confusion I encounter frequently, where partners or colleagues claim that some technological feat is impossible, but it's quite possible. It's merely forbidden by policy.
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits. Your company _elects_ not to do so. Please, let's be very careful about what the law _allows_.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reviewing your words. I see your point better, thank you. Sadly, there is usually another fool ready to pay for well advertised sandwiches.
> The companies who make decisions based on bad data will be more likely to fail
The companies providing the data, selling it, have very little reason to care. They tend to be small, fraudulent operations that _do not care_ what happens as long as they get the first or even second check. Simply because a client fails is not a compelling reason for the next fraudulent company not to avoid the business.
I'm afraid that the "fraud will be forced out of the market by competition" optimism is one of the notable errors of Libertarian politics. In the real world, fraud and abuse are commonplace and can be quite effective, even if only in the short term.
> The majority of FB traffic is consumed through their mobile apps (95% of it), and you can be sure that is not bot type activity.
Whatever makes you think that a fraudulent data stream from a botnet or adware could not forge data from a mobile app?
The ISP's have many reasons to _host_, if not actively foster false traffic. They are paid on the basis of traffic, and more traffic enhances _their_ market value. It's much like the USPS approach to junk mail, and ISP approaches to spam. The recipients _loathe_ the false traffic. The businesses carrying it try to strike a balance between maximum profit of selling bandwidth, advertising the size of their service, payment for websites, overwhelmed customers abandoning them for services with better filters, and the bottom line costs for servers, bandwidth, and security.
In the case of simplistic filtering, such as IP based filters, a few legitimate mails or web access requests from clients behind a banned NAT address can anger customers and cost business contracts. I've had to cope with this from every side myself. Thorough and aggressive filters risk cutting off legitimate traffic, while casual filters that guarantee all delivery can easily flood the recipient. The lessons apply to web traffic as well as they've applied to email.
My workplace pays for my phone, in order for me to receive email on the MS Exchange based system. I access my personal email with a distinct application, precisely to avoid conflating them or confusing them, and avoid personal applications like FaceBook or LinkedIn except for work activities. If I gave up the phone, it could mean losing the job, since I am frequently on call or a high leval escalation point for technical issues.
> Low wage jobs are dead end jobs without future
When I was much younger, I certainly worked various low wage jobs. They kept food in the house and the utilities running while I studied or built up some resources to move. If I may, "the future" for such jobs is something to develop on your personal time, not in the workplace, though there are some useful skills to learn even in the lowest wage work.
There does not seem to be power, water, food, or other public infrastructure to support the working poor in those highly urban areas. This happens in other cities, as well.
I hesitate to name the labs I've dealt with to preserve my pseudonymous status. I'm willing to say that I've dealt with them on 4 distinct occasions in the last 10 years, simply to report criminal activity I or my colleagues had tracked back to its source, and they did nothing with the information. Their position as the agency to report criminal computer activity actively and refusing to release the evidence to others interferes with other agencies.
I'm afraid I've seen no sign that they "have anything better to do" but accept reports and evidence gathered by others, reports on which they refuse to act, and on occasion take credit for other people's work in which they've interfered until the moment of prosecution.. That they accept reports and evidence but then ignore it actually deters other criminal or civil prosecution,
From personal experience with the FBI's Computer Crime Lab, I'd not give them credit for this action without compelling proof. They've not yet shown they're capable of doing the actual work to block, capture, or prosecute any computer criminals in any of the cases I know of personally. The few crimes listed on their website show no sign that they've done nothing successful except to claim credit for others', and they've passively interfered in every investigation I do know of personally. They accept reports and evidence, they do not act on any of it.
I'm afraid that this "multiple tritium atoms from one nucleus" resembles the recent "search optimization" based marketing plans I've been encountering over the last few years. It relies on a much higher successful return on investment than is likely or even feasible. Based merely on the difficulties of doing chemical extraction of a very small, very chemically active, and _extremely_ radioactive molecule embedded in molten lithium metal or in lithium embedded ceramics seems unlikely to ever work safely or work well, or work well enough to significantly reduce the consumption of raw tritium for the fusion reactor.
Whether the Li-n reaction is exothermic, the energy output is only 25% that of the initial deuterium/tritium fusion reaction. On further thought, the energy of the original fusion wouldn't really be wasted, it will still wind up in the lithium blanket, so I see your point that it could be an energy gain. The energy must go _somewhere_, and it's going into the lithium blanket anyway.
I'm afraid, though, that the actual breeder setups you refer to are not _efficient_. I'm looking right now at the "breeder blanket" designs, and one of them look efficient enough to approach even 50% generation of tritium compared to that expended in the fusion reactor. Do you see any designs that approach even that modest efficiency?
I'd be deeply concerned about Python's support for installing quite random dependency chains from https://www.pypi.org/ to satisfy a need for a Python module. Much as ant, gradle, and maven install untested Java modules from the Internet, and as CPAN installed Perl modules, they brought dependency chains with them that could displace and break cricical functioning code. I recently had to help recover a critical system where a release engineer ran "pip install" as a root user and wound up upgrading critical modules in the operating system's built-in package management software.
There are ways to ameliorate the risks, such as using the "virtualenv" utility to install the modules inside what its own playground. But I'll be very curious to see how Microsoft tries to contain the risk of such upgrades.
They could also engage in the mental gymnastics used to explain BDSM where the "submissive" person is really the "person in control". It seems like the X windows "master/slave" relationship, where the display on your local screen is called the "server" and the program running on the remote computer which you display locally is called the "client". It is completely backwards from the mental model most people use for a program running on one machine, displayed on another machine.
Microsoft has also been known to _steal_ technologies that had a competitive edge. It may be difficult prove the theft of the GUI from Xerox, but the theft of VMS source code and technologies to create the NT kernel was clear. David Cutler and his team took a great deal of copyrighted code and patented technologies and trade secrets with them, from their work on VMS and it's canceled followup projects Mica designed to run on the new Prism hardware. While Intel was stealing Alpha technologies to create the Pentium chip, Microsoft was stealing the core VMS technologies to create NT. The combined theft created the "Wintel" commercial juggernaut and bankrupted DEC. There have been other thefts since then, but I've not personally seen any thefts as thorough and outrageous as those.
With Python integration, I'd be concerned that they'll create incompatible, proprietary aspects in their classic "embreace and extend" approach, where the "extend" part adds unrequested features that break compatibility.
I'm afraid that generating tritium that way costs energy that might otherwise be harvested from the initial reactions. Even if, by a miracle of efficiency, the reactor and the harvesting of tritium from such blankets regenerated as much as 50% of the expended tritium, it would only extend the effective amount of fuel by roughly a factor of two. Bulk supplies of fission reactor generated tritium would still be necessary as a primary fuel source.
Can you find any papers or research that suggest a feasible recovery of tritium that might approach even 1% of the tritium expended? There are many fascinating papers about changing the permeability of metal layers in such a reactor, but _none_ of them seem to describe all o ft he steps of the process, especially with any usable efficiency.
There is not enough fuel. Tritium is very unstable and must be continually produced to provide a fuel source. If you're producing or harvesting enough tritium, you either have a fleet of fission reactors already producing far more energy than fusion reactors can harvest from the tritium byproducts, or you have solar sails collecting tritium and potentially harvesting _vastly_ more solar energy than the tritium can produce.
There are some interesting boron fusion designs, rather than tritium and deuterium, but none have yet proven able to harvest more energy than they consume.
"Never dreamed of" is an incredibly high standard. Science fiction and fantasy exist to reach beyond current limitations, and to inspire ideas to strive for. So many of our outrageous realities were described in fiction, such as private industry surging past government programs to create a space program. That was dreamed of by Robert Heinlein in "The Man Who Sold the Moon". The ideas of a poor desert culture with funding from ownership of a critical resource fomenting religious fanaticism and destructive, guerrilla warfare effectively against a larger and more civilized society was described by Frank Herbert in "Dune".
The unimagined or unexpected are not purely techologoical, but social. Lyft and Uber were unexpected. The chemical castration of children to "delay puberty" and "perserve their choice of gender" is unexpected and quite shocking, though fiction described it in the name of planned evolution.
That's why they stole much of the NT kernel from DEC, by hiring David Cutler and his development team. David was one of the core authors of VMS, and the intellectual property theft involved was quite large scale. He and his team brought a great deal of the code with them. The lawsuits of the era were fascinating, and some of them are laid out at https://www.itprotoday.com/com... .
You could use SSH to port-forward an RDP conneciton to the localhost that is otherwise blocked by the firewall. One might also access a CygWin hosted X session. But otherwise, I see no obvious graphical access over the SSH connection.
It's easily tuned to allow authorized_keys to limit access on a key by key basis to specific hostnames, IP addresses, and forced commands by allowing users to manipulate authorized_keys files.
Let's be aware that the server is not the same as the client. There are a number of working clients available, but the server relies on technologies such as forking off distinct copies of the server daemon, especially so that one failed daemon does not disable the service altogether. I'm curious how Microsoft is configuring this to prevent a distributed denial of service attack, and what settings they are using for single-sign-on kerberized connecitons.
Relevant? Absolutely. To claim that " I am not allowed by law to give them certain kinds of feedback or give them swag", however, is a factually incorrect. I'm afraid that it's a kind of confusion I encounter frequently, where partners or colleagues claim that some technological feat is impossible, but it's quite possible. It's merely forbidden by policy.
I agree. I urge that we be clear that it's not that the law prevents the behavior. Avoiding consequences prevents the behavior.
May I point out that tou are _allowed_ to do things for them? You are also _allowed_ to hire them as employees and provide other benefits. Your company _elects_ not to do so. Please, let's be very careful about what the law _allows_.