You are a smart person. I have been recommending to all of my friends who have "excess" cash flow to invest in Tesla. They always have arguments against and such but I point out that you should not be trying to be a day trader. Buy Tesla stock for 20 years from now.
Honestly, buying Tesla stock, even this late in the game, is like buying IBM stock back in the 1940s-50s.
Gene splicing and editing are just new and different ways of doing what we've always done with crops.
Not even close. Traditional methods coerce the "natural" state over time. Direct editing of genes allow for kitten/daffodil hybrids. I think the difference is pretty obvious.
On the GMO topic per se, I'm with the large number of scientists who can't see anything wrong with it.
The concept of "wrong" is a moral judgement. I do not see anything wrong with gene editing either. I do see some potential risks that seem to be glossed over, likely in the pursuit of money.
Genes edits that create combinations that are exceedingly unlikely to occur in nature should likely be studied in depth before releasing those gene combinations into the wild.
I am completely ok with editing genes into whatever configuration a heart desires. I recommend strong caution when releasing artificial gene combinations into the wild. I would even go so far as to say that genetically editing bacteria should be even more strictly controlled than genetically altered food. At the "food" level, it is only the chemicals created by the genes that matter, not the genes themselves.
most of what you eat has been genetically modified by humans, either through selective breeding for animals or crops, very few things we eat today are in the state they existed when discovered. The only difference with this particular method is it is faster and less error prone.
Are you trying to say that directly editing genes is as safe as coercing already existing genes into new configurations?
As far as I can tell, I am not overly freaked out by editing genes. I am actually somewhat interested in trying my own hand at it. The way you present the risks seems disingenuous to me. This is especially true since we do not have a full map of how genes work.
Pen and paper is a great default. Relying purely on machines is insanity. There is a very nice middle ground that we can all agree on I think.
Voter goes in to booth to vote. Uses electronic machine to select votes. Machines prints out an EASILY human readable slip of paper. Paper is deposited in voting box by the voter. Reporters could get access to aggregated numbers from the machines to report on a "likely" outcome; however, the machine tally is not respected for election purposes, only the paper tally is used.
While I am usually one of the first to provide alternative explanations for seemingly hostile actions, the alternative explanation that you offer is not really much better than pure malice on the part of the vendor.
These are machines used to decide the future of our country. Your explanation implies that controls were so loose that a low-level tech had the ability alter entire elections without anyone being aware.
Granted, in MANY areas of tech, a low level tech can do lots of damage; however, the stakes involved are radically different. A lineman can take out power for hundreds of thousands to millions of people for a few weeks. A technician for voting machines can alter the trajectory of an entire country permanently.
The stakes are very high surrounding the outcomes that these machines help to decide. The security should be equal to the task and if your explanation is to be accepted, then the CEO should be prison for trying to sell a device with inadequate processes and procedures. It definitely qualifies as criminally negligent.
LOL. That is such an absolutist way to look at it; although, it makes a great point. The wording should be diffrerent on the original claim. It should say something more like:
Slackware will teach you more about being an admin for a Linux based system than the other distros will.
Ultimately, you are correct that LFS will teach you more about Linux and at a MUCH deeper level. It does not really invalidate the original message though.
Slackware was my second distro but the first (RedHat) was only on the box for a couple days before...
LOL, #metoo
My reason for bailing on Red Hat was different: I was on version 1.x of Red hat and the latest 2.x was out so I decided to upgrade. I downloaded all of the files, over a 14.4 modem no less. But, I couldn't upgrade because all of the packages were wrapped with a new RPM format... even the RPM utility itself. No way to use ANY of those packages without doing a fresh install... so instead, I went to Slackware and I am VERY glad that I did. Slackware kept the vision of being Unixy and of the user being in control.
See, the UNIX paradigm has been something that Microsoft has never been able to swallow. Keep it simple. That's it. That's why all the UNIX commands we know and love have survived through the years, they are simple. They get the job done.
Well, SystemD is trying to make a liar out of you. Pardon me while I roll my eyes in their general direction.
I thought I was a reasonably intelligent human until I encountered PowerShell. 5 minutes with it, and I feel retarded. I haven't determined if it's because I'm too stupid to digest that syntax, if my brain cells are forcefully refusing to, or they're outright committing ritual suicide.
It is because they do not explain what is REALLY important about PowerShell. You need to understand the various layers that it operates on and in what order for it to be useful. In short, the abstraction is hidden from you but it is VERY relevant to using PowerShell coherently. Are you operating on an object and if so, what is it attached to? You can't see. Some of it is WMI, others are C#/.Net libraries.
Are you saying that such interference does not happen any more?
The question is whether or not laws were broken this time.
I am pretty sure foreign entities do not much care if they break another entity's laws when it suits them.
That's a great question to ask, and hopefully the results of this investigation will give insight into that and also suggest additional ways we should be protecting ourselves.
I hope so too. It is not good to have anyone influencing elections discreetly, or, not so discreetly.
But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Russians are actively trying to influence elections and subvert democratic processes in the US and Europe.
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that every government everywhere tries to interfere with every government they have relations with. I have always assumed it was part and parcel of world politics.
Why is this suddenly a big deal now? Why isn't the NSA/CIA keeping the elections safe? I mean, ostensibly, that IS their job. To me, Mueller is an indictment against the Secret Apparatus behind government as failing to do their jobs appropriately. There is nothing new going on that hasn't been going on for centuries, other than specific methods like email hacking.
So why now? What changed? Why is the general population being recruited to deal with this shit? Something not normal is going on and I am fairly certain it has nothing to do with actual subversion of the elections.
We pay top dollars (maybe 4x any other brand total cost, the license is ridiculously expensive) for Cisco because they are proven to work and don't fail.
This is true. Cisco gear CAN be the toughest of the tough. In one of my networks, a switch had been hit by a 7.62 millimeter round and it stopped working. Unplugged it, plugged it back in, and it started working again. Had a bunch of Cisco reps present because were signing a $500 million SmartNet deal with them and they begged to take pictures of my switch to use for marketing purposes. I imagine many people saw pictures of that 3650 (iirc).
Throwing packets around coherently requires discipline, but it is certainly not rocket surgery. Cisco has a motive for making it more difficult than it really is; therefore, the people who mastered that falsely elevated difficulty are also falsely proud of their accomplishments. Nobody wants to hear that what they worked so hard to learn is really much simpler than what was presented. So they remain proud of their accomplishments.
Well, that would be a good idea if everyone who made "porn" were making porn for salacious purposes. Not everything that is designated as porn in your mind was made to satisfy lascivious desires, so how would THAT kind of content be tagged by the creator?
Imagine this: Guy gets his girlfriend to fuck a dog. Guy and girl split up. Guy is mad at girl and distributes pictures of her fucking a dog. Would he tag it as porn? Definitely not. He has an incentive to NOT classify it as porn. I used this example since it has actually shown up on Slashdot in the past.
As someone who distributes porn on the Internet, I've always been frustrated by the lack of a standardized rating mechanism, so that it will only be displayed when people actually want to see it
Tl;DR, that only works when everything is direct and up front.
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
Call me crazy or whatever, since I am... but... How about this: MSM gives us facts and each individual controls their own narrative?
Control is an illusion. Influence is as close to control as you can get. If the MSM is trying to influence me, I immediately reject the attempt, which is why I have not watched television since the early 1980s. Every time I have gone back to that cesspool, I grow disgusted at how stupid they are and how stupid they think we must be. You can't get any useful information from the MSM. It is all twisted and contorted to try and make narrative for you to follow and they are not very good at it.
The fact that "they" think SystemD should be a package manager too kind of tells you their thought processes on all of this: The Unix way is not their way so they will eventually make EVERYTHING their way and there will be no more Unix.
Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct than the SystemD way. Furthermore, if I disagreed so vehemently in the underlying logic of an environment I was in, I would go create my own environment rather than try to subvert the current environment. To me, SystemD is disgusting on many levels.
Let's be fair here. Yes, you are correct to call out the "80% decline in bird population" since mosquitos are not the only source of food for birds. On the other hand, mosquitos ARE food and this is about reducing the number of mosquitos, which means reducing the amount of food.
I have actually seen this in action: Insects flying about being annoying one year. Next year, very few insects flying about being annoying because of aggressive chemical use. Next year after that, you can't see because the insects are so fucking thick.
What happened? Bats were keeping the original insect population moderately controlled. Chemicals heavily controlled the amount of mosquitos the following year, but, the bats had less to eat so either left or starved. The following year after THAT, there were no chemicals and no bats so you could not help but literally breathe in insects.
Are we talking numbers like 80% of bats starving/leaving? Dunno. You are right to call out the specific numbers, but you also should have acknowledged the mechanism that they were describing because the mechanism is true even if the numbers are false.
Their assertions are complete bullshit. There is a reason they make those assertions, and that is where things get interesting.
Pretty much everyone agrees that at The Beginning, their was nothing but energy. It is explained as being at a single point, no mass, no space. Assuming that is correct:
Energy, for whatever reason, "knotted" or "condensed" into 'matter'. When energy became 'matter' it forced the creation of the 'compliment' of mass, which is what we call spacetime. Spacetime is a field. A field of electromagnetism. Space is literally electromagnetic. This is how photons move. Photons aka electromagnetic waves, are literally ripples in this electromagnetic field. The photons are always measured at the same speed regardless of the strength of this field because measurements are always taken in relation to the electromagnetic field, aka spacetime.
The spacetime field falls off in proportion to lorentz invariance as applied to speed in relation to the speed of light. http://www2.lbl.gov/MicroWorld.... If you look at the graph in the lower right corner, the center of the galaxy would be at the far top right of that graph. Technically, any "black hole" will do as far as the top right of that graph goes. The field falls off in direct relation towards the outside of the galaxy. This is why galactic rotation curves do not make "sense" to humans. Time is literally moving faster at the edge of the galaxy than the center. Proof: http://www.astronomy.ohio-stat...
Since spacetime is literally an electromagnetic field, I can understand why the Electric Universe folks get so bent out of shape... they perceived part of a Truth and went running with it... rather like I am.;)
I'm assuming you're in your 40s. Maybe 50s or 60s. The reason why there was no gender was it was 99% white guys.
That is an interesting way to interpret things. Since I lived through those years, I am going to ask you to provide proof that what you claim is the reason behind "no gender".
My experience was that we DID NOT CARE about gender (or race or anything else that stupid people care about) because gender was absolutely fucking irrelevant.
This is why I am going to ask you to back up your statement. The people who invented and/or participated in the early Internet were smart enough to not care about irrelevancies. It was the hordes of stupid people, aka Eternal September, that brought this type of stupidity to the Internet.
I know this is rude, but since you are clearly not of the more intelligent type, I will spell it out for you: You are a fucking moron and YOU are one of the reasons the Internet has devolved. Give it up. Only stupid people care about irrelevancies.
Explaining things for the lowest common denominator always feels so... icky... but just to remove all ambiguity
The problem with explaining for the "lowest common denominator" is that they were never the ones to have a problem to begin with. The people you are actually "explaining" it to have a vested interest in NOT understanding and in twisting your words. All you are really doing is defending yourself from the lowest common denominator getting riled up by the people who don't WANT to understand.
These "Engineers" are very clever, very clever indeed! They've come up with a method by which it doesn't matter which sort of connector is used.
And then someone pays ANOTHER engineer to put a cryptographically secure chip in the cable making the type of connector an irrelevant issue but still funnels money into someone else's pocket.
As a non-American I find it odd to observe from a distance the esteem that a document written in 1787 is held.
Then you are likely unaware of the fight that has been going on for thousands of years concerning the freedoms and liberties of the individual versus the necessity of handing lots of power to a centralized authority.
There is a reason the Magna Carta is a deeply revered document today. There is an even better reason that some documents written for the founding of the United States of America are deeply esteemed: They give the individual a basis to fight for their freedom.
I am unsure about you, but for me, without individual freedom, this universe is not worth living in. That makes those documents important.
A judge interpreting what the law (constitution) tries to say about a distributor (ISP).
Except an ISP is NOT a distributor. Sure, you could say an ISP "distributes" packets, but that is a reductio ad absurdum thing. I counter that the ISP can NOT be classified as a distributor because the ISP does not actually make the initial decision for whether or not packets flow, they merely facilitate the flowing of packets.
We've never focused on security. We simply cannot afford to.
That is because you and many other people fail to understand how the concept of security is to be applied.
Ultimately, if security is seen as a "state of things", then the ONLY way to be secure is to freeze time since any changes could lead to making things less secure.
Ultimately, things change. Managing that change intelligently is security. Just follow a few simple steps:
Establish what you want to do.
Look for any risks associated with that activity.
Determine if any of those risks can thwart your original intention.
If your original intention can be thwarted, you are free to spend as much energy mitigating the risk as you will on the original activity.
If your original intention can NOT be thwarted by the risks, then it is absurd to spend the same, or more, energy than the original intention.
The final step is to determine if any of the mitigations prevent you from executing your original intention. If the mitigations prevent you from executing your original intention, your security has failed. If your mitigations have increased the energy cost by more than 100%, then your security has failed.
Slashdot Mirror
You are a smart person. I have been recommending to all of my friends who have "excess" cash flow to invest in Tesla. They always have arguments against and such but I point out that you should not be trying to be a day trader. Buy Tesla stock for 20 years from now.
Honestly, buying Tesla stock, even this late in the game, is like buying IBM stock back in the 1940s-50s.
Gene splicing and editing are just new and different ways of doing what we've always done with crops.
Not even close. Traditional methods coerce the "natural" state over time. Direct editing of genes allow for kitten/daffodil hybrids. I think the difference is pretty obvious.
On the GMO topic per se, I'm with the large number of scientists who can't see anything wrong with it.
The concept of "wrong" is a moral judgement. I do not see anything wrong with gene editing either. I do see some potential risks that seem to be glossed over, likely in the pursuit of money.
Genes edits that create combinations that are exceedingly unlikely to occur in nature should likely be studied in depth before releasing those gene combinations into the wild.
I am completely ok with editing genes into whatever configuration a heart desires. I recommend strong caution when releasing artificial gene combinations into the wild. I would even go so far as to say that genetically editing bacteria should be even more strictly controlled than genetically altered food. At the "food" level, it is only the chemicals created by the genes that matter, not the genes themselves.
most of what you eat has been genetically modified by humans, either through selective breeding for animals or crops, very few things we eat today are in the state they existed when discovered. The only difference with this particular method is it is faster and less error prone.
Are you trying to say that directly editing genes is as safe as coercing already existing genes into new configurations?
As far as I can tell, I am not overly freaked out by editing genes. I am actually somewhat interested in trying my own hand at it. The way you present the risks seems disingenuous to me. This is especially true since we do not have a full map of how genes work.
Pen and paper is a great default. Relying purely on machines is insanity. There is a very nice middle ground that we can all agree on I think.
Voter goes in to booth to vote. Uses electronic machine to select votes. Machines prints out an EASILY human readable slip of paper. Paper is deposited in voting box by the voter. Reporters could get access to aggregated numbers from the machines to report on a "likely" outcome; however, the machine tally is not respected for election purposes, only the paper tally is used.
While I am usually one of the first to provide alternative explanations for seemingly hostile actions, the alternative explanation that you offer is not really much better than pure malice on the part of the vendor.
These are machines used to decide the future of our country. Your explanation implies that controls were so loose that a low-level tech had the ability alter entire elections without anyone being aware.
Granted, in MANY areas of tech, a low level tech can do lots of damage; however, the stakes involved are radically different. A lineman can take out power for hundreds of thousands to millions of people for a few weeks. A technician for voting machines can alter the trajectory of an entire country permanently.
The stakes are very high surrounding the outcomes that these machines help to decide. The security should be equal to the task and if your explanation is to be accepted, then the CEO should be prison for trying to sell a device with inadequate processes and procedures. It definitely qualifies as criminally negligent.
LOL. That is such an absolutist way to look at it; although, it makes a great point. The wording should be diffrerent on the original claim. It should say something more like:
Slackware will teach you more about being an admin for a Linux based system than the other distros will.
Ultimately, you are correct that LFS will teach you more about Linux and at a MUCH deeper level. It does not really invalidate the original message though.
Slackware was my second distro but the first (RedHat) was only on the box for a couple days before...
LOL, #metoo
My reason for bailing on Red Hat was different: I was on version 1.x of Red hat and the latest 2.x was out so I decided to upgrade. I downloaded all of the files, over a 14.4 modem no less. But, I couldn't upgrade because all of the packages were wrapped with a new RPM format... even the RPM utility itself. No way to use ANY of those packages without doing a fresh install... so instead, I went to Slackware and I am VERY glad that I did. Slackware kept the vision of being Unixy and of the user being in control.
See, the UNIX paradigm has been something that Microsoft has never been able to swallow. Keep it simple. That's it. That's why all the UNIX commands we know and love have survived through the years, they are simple. They get the job done.
Well, SystemD is trying to make a liar out of you. Pardon me while I roll my eyes in their general direction.
I thought I was a reasonably intelligent human until I encountered PowerShell. 5 minutes with it, and I feel retarded. I haven't determined if it's because I'm too stupid to digest that syntax, if my brain cells are forcefully refusing to, or they're outright committing ritual suicide.
It is because they do not explain what is REALLY important about PowerShell. You need to understand the various layers that it operates on and in what order for it to be useful. In short, the abstraction is hidden from you but it is VERY relevant to using PowerShell coherently. Are you operating on an object and if so, what is it attached to? You can't see. Some of it is WMI, others are C#/.Net libraries.
OK, you're forgiven.
Thank you.
Are you saying that such interference does not happen any more?
The question is whether or not laws were broken this time.
I am pretty sure foreign entities do not much care if they break another entity's laws when it suits them.
That's a great question to ask, and hopefully the results of this investigation will give insight into that and also suggest additional ways we should be protecting ourselves.
I hope so too. It is not good to have anyone influencing elections discreetly, or, not so discreetly.
Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct
The UNIX way scales very nicely from IOT to supercomputers h all, or almost all, supercomputers use Linux or another *nix.
That is a very nice illustration of the Unix Way being arguably more correct. Thank you. :)
But that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Russians are actively trying to influence elections and subvert democratic processes in the US and Europe.
Forgive me, but I was under the impression that every government everywhere tries to interfere with every government they have relations with. I have always assumed it was part and parcel of world politics.
Why is this suddenly a big deal now? Why isn't the NSA/CIA keeping the elections safe? I mean, ostensibly, that IS their job. To me, Mueller is an indictment against the Secret Apparatus behind government as failing to do their jobs appropriately. There is nothing new going on that hasn't been going on for centuries, other than specific methods like email hacking.
So why now? What changed? Why is the general population being recruited to deal with this shit? Something not normal is going on and I am fairly certain it has nothing to do with actual subversion of the elections.
We pay top dollars (maybe 4x any other brand total cost, the license is ridiculously expensive) for Cisco because they are proven to work and don't fail.
This is true. Cisco gear CAN be the toughest of the tough. In one of my networks, a switch had been hit by a 7.62 millimeter round and it stopped working. Unplugged it, plugged it back in, and it started working again. Had a bunch of Cisco reps present because were signing a $500 million SmartNet deal with them and they begged to take pictures of my switch to use for marketing purposes. I imagine many people saw pictures of that 3650 (iirc).
Throwing packets around coherently requires discipline, but it is certainly not rocket surgery. Cisco has a motive for making it more difficult than it really is; therefore, the people who mastered that falsely elevated difficulty are also falsely proud of their accomplishments. Nobody wants to hear that what they worked so hard to learn is really much simpler than what was presented. So they remain proud of their accomplishments.
Well, that would be a good idea if everyone who made "porn" were making porn for salacious purposes. Not everything that is designated as porn in your mind was made to satisfy lascivious desires, so how would THAT kind of content be tagged by the creator?
Imagine this: Guy gets his girlfriend to fuck a dog. Guy and girl split up. Guy is mad at girl and distributes pictures of her fucking a dog. Would he tag it as porn? Definitely not. He has an incentive to NOT classify it as porn. I used this example since it has actually shown up on Slashdot in the past.
As someone who distributes porn on the Internet, I've always been frustrated by the lack of a standardized rating mechanism, so that it will only be displayed when people actually want to see it
Tl;DR, that only works when everything is direct and up front.
The absolute failure of the MSM and various governments to control the narrative of any one issue has already proven the futility of trying to censor dissenting opinions and narratives.
Call me crazy or whatever, since I am... but... How about this: MSM gives us facts and each individual controls their own narrative?
Control is an illusion. Influence is as close to control as you can get. If the MSM is trying to influence me, I immediately reject the attempt, which is why I have not watched television since the early 1980s. Every time I have gone back to that cesspool, I grow disgusted at how stupid they are and how stupid they think we must be. You can't get any useful information from the MSM. It is all twisted and contorted to try and make narrative for you to follow and they are not very good at it.
The fact that "they" think SystemD should be a package manager too kind of tells you their thought processes on all of this: The Unix way is not their way so they will eventually make EVERYTHING their way and there will be no more Unix.
Not that I particularly care about the Unix way, but it is arguably more "philosophically" correct than the SystemD way. Furthermore, if I disagreed so vehemently in the underlying logic of an environment I was in, I would go create my own environment rather than try to subvert the current environment. To me, SystemD is disgusting on many levels.
Let's be fair here. Yes, you are correct to call out the "80% decline in bird population" since mosquitos are not the only source of food for birds. On the other hand, mosquitos ARE food and this is about reducing the number of mosquitos, which means reducing the amount of food.
I have actually seen this in action: Insects flying about being annoying one year. Next year, very few insects flying about being annoying because of aggressive chemical use. Next year after that, you can't see because the insects are so fucking thick.
What happened? Bats were keeping the original insect population moderately controlled. Chemicals heavily controlled the amount of mosquitos the following year, but, the bats had less to eat so either left or starved. The following year after THAT, there were no chemicals and no bats so you could not help but literally breathe in insects.
Are we talking numbers like 80% of bats starving/leaving? Dunno. You are right to call out the specific numbers, but you also should have acknowledged the mechanism that they were describing because the mechanism is true even if the numbers are false.
Electric universe is bullshit.
Their assertions are complete bullshit. There is a reason they make those assertions, and that is where things get interesting.
Pretty much everyone agrees that at The Beginning, their was nothing but energy. It is explained as being at a single point, no mass, no space. Assuming that is correct:
Energy, for whatever reason, "knotted" or "condensed" into 'matter'. When energy became 'matter' it forced the creation of the 'compliment' of mass, which is what we call spacetime. Spacetime is a field. A field of electromagnetism. Space is literally electromagnetic. This is how photons move. Photons aka electromagnetic waves, are literally ripples in this electromagnetic field. The photons are always measured at the same speed regardless of the strength of this field because measurements are always taken in relation to the electromagnetic field, aka spacetime.
The spacetime field falls off in proportion to lorentz invariance as applied to speed in relation to the speed of light. http://www2.lbl.gov/MicroWorld.... If you look at the graph in the lower right corner, the center of the galaxy would be at the far top right of that graph. Technically, any "black hole" will do as far as the top right of that graph goes. The field falls off in direct relation towards the outside of the galaxy. This is why galactic rotation curves do not make "sense" to humans. Time is literally moving faster at the edge of the galaxy than the center. Proof: http://www.astronomy.ohio-stat...
Since spacetime is literally an electromagnetic field, I can understand why the Electric Universe folks get so bent out of shape... they perceived part of a Truth and went running with it... rather like I am. ;)
I'm assuming you're in your 40s. Maybe 50s or 60s. The reason why there was no gender was it was 99% white guys.
That is an interesting way to interpret things. Since I lived through those years, I am going to ask you to provide proof that what you claim is the reason behind "no gender".
My experience was that we DID NOT CARE about gender (or race or anything else that stupid people care about) because gender was absolutely fucking irrelevant.
This is why I am going to ask you to back up your statement. The people who invented and/or participated in the early Internet were smart enough to not care about irrelevancies. It was the hordes of stupid people, aka Eternal September, that brought this type of stupidity to the Internet.
I know this is rude, but since you are clearly not of the more intelligent type, I will spell it out for you: You are a fucking moron and YOU are one of the reasons the Internet has devolved. Give it up. Only stupid people care about irrelevancies.
Explaining things for the lowest common denominator always feels so ... icky ... but just to remove all ambiguity
The problem with explaining for the "lowest common denominator" is that they were never the ones to have a problem to begin with. The people you are actually "explaining" it to have a vested interest in NOT understanding and in twisting your words. All you are really doing is defending yourself from the lowest common denominator getting riled up by the people who don't WANT to understand.
Anyways... I understood.
These "Engineers" are very clever, very clever indeed! They've come up with a method by which it doesn't matter which sort of connector is used.
And then someone pays ANOTHER engineer to put a cryptographically secure chip in the cable making the type of connector an irrelevant issue but still funnels money into someone else's pocket.
As a non-American I find it odd to observe from a distance the esteem that a document written in 1787 is held.
Then you are likely unaware of the fight that has been going on for thousands of years concerning the freedoms and liberties of the individual versus the necessity of handing lots of power to a centralized authority.
There is a reason the Magna Carta is a deeply revered document today. There is an even better reason that some documents written for the founding of the United States of America are deeply esteemed: They give the individual a basis to fight for their freedom.
I am unsure about you, but for me, without individual freedom, this universe is not worth living in. That makes those documents important.
A judge interpreting what the law (constitution) tries to say about a distributor (ISP).
Except an ISP is NOT a distributor. Sure, you could say an ISP "distributes" packets, but that is a reductio ad absurdum thing. I counter that the ISP can NOT be classified as a distributor because the ISP does not actually make the initial decision for whether or not packets flow, they merely facilitate the flowing of packets.
We've never focused on security. We simply cannot afford to.
That is because you and many other people fail to understand how the concept of security is to be applied.
Ultimately, if security is seen as a "state of things", then the ONLY way to be secure is to freeze time since any changes could lead to making things less secure.
Ultimately, things change. Managing that change intelligently is security. Just follow a few simple steps:
Establish what you want to do.
Look for any risks associated with that activity.
Determine if any of those risks can thwart your original intention.
If your original intention can be thwarted, you are free to spend as much energy mitigating the risk as you will on the original activity.
If your original intention can NOT be thwarted by the risks, then it is absurd to spend the same, or more, energy than the original intention.
The final step is to determine if any of the mitigations prevent you from executing your original intention. If the mitigations prevent you from executing your original intention, your security has failed. If your mitigations have increased the energy cost by more than 100%, then your security has failed.