I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Republicans, 2018 may not even be the chief issue. A worst case scenario for them is to have the Dems retake Congress, even by nominal numbers in the Senate (I don't think it's going to happen, it's too stacked against the Democrats to make it likely). Even if the Dems take the House, that will be enough to disrupt the Administration's ability to get its policies through Congress. Trump would likely respond with a series of government shut downs, but if his political capital erodes, even with that 30% base intact, the Dems will likely be able to make a good argument that Administration intransigence and incompetence, with an aim to making even greater gains in 2020.
Honestly I don't see a good way out of this for the Republicans short of Trump deciding not to run in 2020. The signals still seem strong that he will, and certainly, unless things change greatly over the next two years, I see no reason to think Trump would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2020. That surely must be what worries Republicans and their contributors, hence the now growing breach between major Republican donors like the Kochs and the party. I could well imagine mainstream Republicans and donors like the Kochs starting a sort of shadow war against Trump's renomination in 2020, with an effort to dislodge Trump's base enough to actually see a primary challenge with some momentum, but again, that's really based on separating Trump from some significant portion of his base. I think it's a long shot, and I see better than even odds that Trump, should he want to, being on the ticket for 2020.
Of course this is all prognostication. Maybe the Dems have a failure to launch this November, and either don't retake the House, or take it by much leaner margins than they're hoping for. If it's a very small majority of Dems in the House, Trump could try on a bill by bill basis to sway some Democrats to support his initiatives. It would require a level of brinkmanship that Trump hasn't shown much talent for yet, and moderating his message enough to convince moderate Democrats that they have more to gain by some level of cooperation.
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls. 2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such evidence creates.
But really, at this point, we have the President and his spokesmen outright saying "Collusion isn't illegal", so there's not even denial now, but simply trying to frame what everyone knows to be true as business as usual. So why anyone seems interested in denying it is beyond me, when Trump himself has pretty much admitted it.
Is it though? A few big outfits have their own journalism departments but wire services still do the bulk. Outfits like Breitbart and even Fox News largely wrap wire stories in layers of editorial. They're basically aggregators.
That's fair enough, but it is going to mean lifestyle changes. Cities will have to be redesigned; both for public transportation and for smart grids. People are going to have to accept wind turbines, solar power, tidal power and a whole host of other types of installations and technologies. If people want to maintain their standard of living, which I know I do, then we're going to have to accept the costs that come attached to that. And really, in some respects we are. Go buy house or property insurance now, and you're paying for AGW because actuaries have been working in the various risk factors attached to climate change, and in some cases won't cover it at all. While I can buy a policy right now that covers me for fire damage or destruction, if the house catches on fire from a wildfire, I've got no insurance protection at all, since where I live is deemed at a moderate risk for forest fires. If my house burns down because of a forest fire, I will have no coverage, and I will have to apply for disaster assistance from the government (in other words, the taxpayer becomes the insurer of last resort). Same for flooding (though thankfully I'm up hill from the nearest body of water).
By and large the economy is absorbing the mounting costs, which is good, but costs are rising, and will continue to rise. So it seems logical that rather than paying the money over the span of decades in various other hidden costs, why not invest the money now?
Well, complicated in the respect that to make a reasonable jab at reducing emissions globally is going to take a lot of investment in technology and diplomacy. It's going to mean taking solutions that are more often than not either still largely on the drawing board, and haven't even made it that far. It's going to mean marshaling national and international resources, and yup, it's going to cost a lot of money. But you pay now or you pay later. That's the saddest part, conservatives are always the ones railing against borrowing our children's money, and yet the climate denalism which is such a feature of modern conservatism is doing just that, raking in the profits now, and forcing our children to pay for it later.
Translation: We can just happily increase emissions, confident that we can contain the crisis outside our borders. Except if a great power like the US loses food security, suddenly what happens outside its borders becomes orders of a magnitude more important. What if the bulk of the US's food ends up being grown in Canada? At that point, a foreign nation is in control of a significant aspect of US stability. Traditionally, when nations have found themselves beholden to external markets for their wellbeing, they have done something about it. Britain built an empire, in no small part because its economic wellbeing, including feeding its populace, became a pre-eminent problem.
Hasn't this long been established by Federal courts, that borders (including international airports) are at least a partial exception to some rights? Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , and admittedly the lines seem fine (a fixed border outpost versus roaming patrols). Now maybe there's some criticism of where the Supreme Court has drawn these lines, but let's be clear here, borders have always been special situations, and the Federal Government certainly has a unique interest in policing national borders, seeing as one of its constitutional obligations is to defend Americans against foreign threats. This is why, I imagine, the Supreme Court has allowed these partial exceptions; because you essentially have the Bill of Rights colliding with another constitutional requirement, and faced with "border agents can do whatever the hell they like" and "border agents can't do anything at all without going through the full process of getting a judge to grant a warrant", they decided on a non-binary bit of logic; that border agents can do some things that infringe on the Bill of Rights, but with limits.
Now I think there's a good deal of debate about what those limits should be, and doubtless over time the border search exceptions may be more finely honed, if ultimately the courts decide that there are egregious enough abuses to warrant it, but if Fourth Amendment is interpreted absolutely, I can imagine the Federal Government would have to hire thousands of judges whose only job is to sit at airports and border posts, and wait for someone to get nabbed by border officials, so that warrants can be obtained in anything approaching a timely fashion. When two constitutional principles collide, sometimes the best anyone can hope for is a bit of a Solomon's choice. And yes, it sucks really bad when innocent people are harassed at the border for nothing more than a TSA agent raising an eyebrow, but one wonders if better training is more the answer than demands that agents be disempowered because sometimes they go after the wrong guy.
I did. The cost in a hundred years will be much higher than today, in several categories; property loss, social costs, food security, geopolitical stability. And really, you're already paying the costs, as the insurance industry is already costing it in for several types of insurance. But it isn't going to get any better, and even if the targets were met, it would stall out the warming, but we'd still have to deal with the damage done. I get where you're coming from, if you can somehow wiggle out a "well it will cost lots of money, so fuck the future" that's better. And maybe you're right. Maybe we should just fuck the future. After all, nothing matters but the price of a commute.
You might be able to call a week or two weather, but this is widespread across the northern hemisphere, and is part of a general trend of seasonal highs. And do you think the universe cares about Liberals and conservatives? CO2 has the properties it has, and doesn't change based on political affiliation.
What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?
Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Put less CO2 and methane in the air. And as a side effect you don't hear the oceans and fuck with their pH balance.
Not to mention the temperature records set in the Arctic over the last few seasons. One of the reason for harsher winters in North America has been massive outflows of cold air out of the Arctic as it warms. We are literally watching the world warm, and you still have people vomiting out that idiotic "weather" meme. And yes, unless is a complete idiot, you have to know you're spouting nonsense when you go "it's summer so it's warm, so no global warming!"
The problem is that these Christian supremacist types and the libertarians were for a long time Conservatives' useful idiots. And then the useful idiots took over the party, and every dog whistle slogan Republicans had been using for a couple of generations to get that base to the polls suddenly is political reality. Now they're stuck between the reality they know is happening and a base that took what was a load of bullshit seriously.
Not that governments that take the reality of AGW seriously are doing that much either, but even acknowledgment is something. But we'll do what we've done before, basically hand it off to our children and grandchildren, make them pay the economic and social price.
How is indifference any different. If the end result is the same, that people fleeing catastrophe drown, does it matter whether it was an active effort to drown them, are just callousness and apathy that allows it to happen? You either make an active moral choice or you invoke indifference, and make the moral choice by default. A drowning man doesn't much care whether someone in the lifeboat is shoving his head under water, or is just sitting watching him die.
And let's remember here that countries like Syria and Iraq are the creations of the Great Powers. They ignored any kind of tribal or ethnic divisions, or even the divisions of convenience of the Ottoman Empire. They just simply took maps, carved out protectorates and dependencies, and then, after a few years, when they could no longer sustain their empires or keep a lid on the chaos they'd bottled up, they just walked away. So I'd say, considering the Great Powers in question were, by and large, France and the UK, who decided from the 18th and 20th centuries that the Mediterranean was their lake (and really, Britain still holding Gibraltar indicates that the long-term goal of "managing" the Mediterranean is still in the national interest) have, so far as I can see, a significant debt to the citizens of these countries. To just decide, after decades of chaos (much of it unleashed by another Great Power, the United States, botch occupation of Iraq), that it isn't their problem any more is a moral choice.
Pretty short term problem, as MS did ship compatibility filters for Office 2007+ formats for older versions of Word. Yes, interoperability between versions, particular from the transition from doc to docx was problematic, and I'd say 95% of the time OpenOffice/LibreOffice can handle MS's file formats. The problem is the 5%, and that's where our problems stemmed from. In the end, everyone was upgraded to Office 2010, which still does handle the newer variants of OOXML found in Office 2013 and 2016 without much of a hitch. In the end, whether we liked it or not (and we don't, Office is bloody expensive in any enterprise environment no matter how you slice it), unimpeded work flow is far more costly. If LibreOffice could ever get sufficient penetration to force more effort at interoperability, then we'd review it, but for now, Microsoft has us pretty firmly embedded in their ecosystem (and like I said, it's not like I like it, particularly as the newer subscription model feels more like being held hostage).
This... so much this. Segregate these devices, limit access via VLANs and firewalls. Yes, it may mean only a handful of other devices and workstations can touch these older devices, but you need to reduce the attack surface as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand there are political cycles here. After all, a decade ago the Republicans lost control of the White House and Congress.
I'm sure there's a portion of that 30% base that could potentially slip, but in general my assumption is that the GOP has done a good enough at attacking Rosenstein and Mueller that the bar for the kind of evidence for malfeasance to see any significant portion of that base abandon Trump would be very high indeed. It's not necessarily a matter of stupidity as it were, but simply that the environment is so polarized that even hard evidence isn't likely to see any significant erosion in his support.
For the Republicans, 2018 may not even be the chief issue. A worst case scenario for them is to have the Dems retake Congress, even by nominal numbers in the Senate (I don't think it's going to happen, it's too stacked against the Democrats to make it likely). Even if the Dems take the House, that will be enough to disrupt the Administration's ability to get its policies through Congress. Trump would likely respond with a series of government shut downs, but if his political capital erodes, even with that 30% base intact, the Dems will likely be able to make a good argument that Administration intransigence and incompetence, with an aim to making even greater gains in 2020.
Honestly I don't see a good way out of this for the Republicans short of Trump deciding not to run in 2020. The signals still seem strong that he will, and certainly, unless things change greatly over the next two years, I see no reason to think Trump would be vulnerable to a primary challenge in 2020. That surely must be what worries Republicans and their contributors, hence the now growing breach between major Republican donors like the Kochs and the party. I could well imagine mainstream Republicans and donors like the Kochs starting a sort of shadow war against Trump's renomination in 2020, with an effort to dislodge Trump's base enough to actually see a primary challenge with some momentum, but again, that's really based on separating Trump from some significant portion of his base. I think it's a long shot, and I see better than even odds that Trump, should he want to, being on the ticket for 2020.
Of course this is all prognostication. Maybe the Dems have a failure to launch this November, and either don't retake the House, or take it by much leaner margins than they're hoping for. If it's a very small majority of Dems in the House, Trump could try on a bill by bill basis to sway some Democrats to support his initiatives. It would require a level of brinkmanship that Trump hasn't shown much talent for yet, and moderating his message enough to convince moderate Democrats that they have more to gain by some level of cooperation.
I don't mean delegitimization as in impeachment and removal. If the Dems take the House, impeachment becomes a possibility, but even if they do manage to take the Senate, it would probably be by the same margins the Republicans hold it now, which means they won't have the 2/3s vote to remove Trump, so I think removal is incredibly unlikely.
The effect of delegitimizing Trump is more an issue of political capital. If Mueller draws a straight enough line, even if it isn't straight enough to pull the plug on Trump's presidency, and in particular if the Dems do very well this November, delegitimization will greatly reduce cooperation between Congress and the Administration. Even with a Republican-dominated Congress, there's already talk of Congress taking back some of the powers (particularly trade powers) that had been "loaned" to the President, and you can be sure that such delegated powers would start to be stripped from the Executive, particularly if the balance tips towards the Democrats. The President has a lot of constitutional powers all his own, but a lot of what he does is essentially statutory in nature; Congress has passed laws allowing the Executive to do lots of things in many areas of government, and if Congress decides it can no longer trust the Executive, whether out of misdeed or incompetence, or in this situation, simply because the Presidency lacks the political credibility, that is where a loss of legitimacy could see the White House become isolated. And Trump would hardly be the first president to find himself largely shoved in to a corner, and the powers of Congress and the courts to restrain the Executive could make it pretty miserable for him.
The problem for the Republicans in general is that they're stuck between the rock (Trump himself) and the hard place (that solid Republican base that is loyal to Trump). The base can't win a lot of races for them, but they will win a lot less races if that base abandons them. So right now, with mid-terms just a few months away, they have to at least keep bailing water out of the hold to maximize their chances. I think to some extent they're probably overestimating the threat the Democrat's represent; the House is in play (and will likely flip) but the Senate is most likely to stay in Republican hands, though with pretty similar margins as they have now. I think the act of tying themselves so firmly to Trump will in the long run do them more harm than good, and at least a modest break with him, at least on specific files, would probably assist them, but obviously they have their own metrics for that that indicate otherwise.
I have two explanations for the general reaction of some to reports of interference in the election (and in particular Russian influence).
1. Some of those rejecting the claims and evidence brought forward are indeed Russian trolls.
2. If interference and collusion are proven, it undermines the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. Since for the dedicated Trump base, that's an impossible scenario to even contemplate, outright rejection of any evidence is the only way out of the cognitive dissonance that such evidence creates.
But really, at this point, we have the President and his spokesmen outright saying "Collusion isn't illegal", so there's not even denial now, but simply trying to frame what everyone knows to be true as business as usual. So why anyone seems interested in denying it is beyond me, when Trump himself has pretty much admitted it.
Is it though? A few big outfits have their own journalism departments but wire services still do the bulk. Outfits like Breitbart and even Fox News largely wrap wire stories in layers of editorial. They're basically aggregators.
That's fair enough, but it is going to mean lifestyle changes. Cities will have to be redesigned; both for public transportation and for smart grids. People are going to have to accept wind turbines, solar power, tidal power and a whole host of other types of installations and technologies. If people want to maintain their standard of living, which I know I do, then we're going to have to accept the costs that come attached to that. And really, in some respects we are. Go buy house or property insurance now, and you're paying for AGW because actuaries have been working in the various risk factors attached to climate change, and in some cases won't cover it at all. While I can buy a policy right now that covers me for fire damage or destruction, if the house catches on fire from a wildfire, I've got no insurance protection at all, since where I live is deemed at a moderate risk for forest fires. If my house burns down because of a forest fire, I will have no coverage, and I will have to apply for disaster assistance from the government (in other words, the taxpayer becomes the insurer of last resort). Same for flooding (though thankfully I'm up hill from the nearest body of water).
By and large the economy is absorbing the mounting costs, which is good, but costs are rising, and will continue to rise. So it seems logical that rather than paying the money over the span of decades in various other hidden costs, why not invest the money now?
Well, complicated in the respect that to make a reasonable jab at reducing emissions globally is going to take a lot of investment in technology and diplomacy. It's going to mean taking solutions that are more often than not either still largely on the drawing board, and haven't even made it that far. It's going to mean marshaling national and international resources, and yup, it's going to cost a lot of money. But you pay now or you pay later. That's the saddest part, conservatives are always the ones railing against borrowing our children's money, and yet the climate denalism which is such a feature of modern conservatism is doing just that, raking in the profits now, and forcing our children to pay for it later.
Translation: We can just happily increase emissions, confident that we can contain the crisis outside our borders. Except if a great power like the US loses food security, suddenly what happens outside its borders becomes orders of a magnitude more important. What if the bulk of the US's food ends up being grown in Canada? At that point, a foreign nation is in control of a significant aspect of US stability. Traditionally, when nations have found themselves beholden to external markets for their wellbeing, they have done something about it. Britain built an empire, in no small part because its economic wellbeing, including feeding its populace, became a pre-eminent problem.
Because no one is actually making serious efforts yet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Hasn't this long been established by Federal courts, that borders (including international airports) are at least a partial exception to some rights? Wikipedia has an article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , and admittedly the lines seem fine (a fixed border outpost versus roaming patrols). Now maybe there's some criticism of where the Supreme Court has drawn these lines, but let's be clear here, borders have always been special situations, and the Federal Government certainly has a unique interest in policing national borders, seeing as one of its constitutional obligations is to defend Americans against foreign threats. This is why, I imagine, the Supreme Court has allowed these partial exceptions; because you essentially have the Bill of Rights colliding with another constitutional requirement, and faced with "border agents can do whatever the hell they like" and "border agents can't do anything at all without going through the full process of getting a judge to grant a warrant", they decided on a non-binary bit of logic; that border agents can do some things that infringe on the Bill of Rights, but with limits.
Now I think there's a good deal of debate about what those limits should be, and doubtless over time the border search exceptions may be more finely honed, if ultimately the courts decide that there are egregious enough abuses to warrant it, but if Fourth Amendment is interpreted absolutely, I can imagine the Federal Government would have to hire thousands of judges whose only job is to sit at airports and border posts, and wait for someone to get nabbed by border officials, so that warrants can be obtained in anything approaching a timely fashion. When two constitutional principles collide, sometimes the best anyone can hope for is a bit of a Solomon's choice. And yes, it sucks really bad when innocent people are harassed at the border for nothing more than a TSA agent raising an eyebrow, but one wonders if better training is more the answer than demands that agents be disempowered because sometimes they go after the wrong guy.
I did. The cost in a hundred years will be much higher than today, in several categories; property loss, social costs, food security, geopolitical stability. And really, you're already paying the costs, as the insurance industry is already costing it in for several types of insurance. But it isn't going to get any better, and even if the targets were met, it would stall out the warming, but we'd still have to deal with the damage done. I get where you're coming from, if you can somehow wiggle out a "well it will cost lots of money, so fuck the future" that's better. And maybe you're right. Maybe we should just fuck the future. After all, nothing matters but the price of a commute.
No, it's the direct result of CO2 emissions.
Wonder whose modding me down. Dominionists or libertarians.
You might be able to call a week or two weather, but this is widespread across the northern hemisphere, and is part of a general trend of seasonal highs. And do you think the universe cares about Liberals and conservatives? CO2 has the properties it has, and doesn't change based on political affiliation.
Innovation has to be funded. Trying to make coal profitable again is not innovation.
What impact will not doing it have on our society? What happens when rain belts shift northward and major industrial powers suddenly have food security problems?
I have to ask. Are you functionally retarded?
Massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Put less CO2 and methane in the air. And as a side effect you don't hear the oceans and fuck with their pH balance.
Not to mention the temperature records set in the Arctic over the last few seasons. One of the reason for harsher winters in North America has been massive outflows of cold air out of the Arctic as it warms. We are literally watching the world warm, and you still have people vomiting out that idiotic "weather" meme. And yes, unless is a complete idiot, you have to know you're spouting nonsense when you go "it's summer so it's warm, so no global warming!"
The problem is that these Christian supremacist types and the libertarians were for a long time Conservatives' useful idiots. And then the useful idiots took over the party, and every dog whistle slogan Republicans had been using for a couple of generations to get that base to the polls suddenly is political reality. Now they're stuck between the reality they know is happening and a base that took what was a load of bullshit seriously.
Not that governments that take the reality of AGW seriously are doing that much either, but even acknowledgment is something. But we'll do what we've done before, basically hand it off to our children and grandchildren, make them pay the economic and social price.
Czechoslovakia is a happy story. Counter that with Yugoslavia. One happy ending doesn't disprove a number of far less happy endings.
I wasn't aware that it had left the drain. This is more of a question of whether it leaves the p-trap and gets back into the drain.
How is indifference any different. If the end result is the same, that people fleeing catastrophe drown, does it matter whether it was an active effort to drown them, are just callousness and apathy that allows it to happen? You either make an active moral choice or you invoke indifference, and make the moral choice by default. A drowning man doesn't much care whether someone in the lifeboat is shoving his head under water, or is just sitting watching him die.
And let's remember here that countries like Syria and Iraq are the creations of the Great Powers. They ignored any kind of tribal or ethnic divisions, or even the divisions of convenience of the Ottoman Empire. They just simply took maps, carved out protectorates and dependencies, and then, after a few years, when they could no longer sustain their empires or keep a lid on the chaos they'd bottled up, they just walked away. So I'd say, considering the Great Powers in question were, by and large, France and the UK, who decided from the 18th and 20th centuries that the Mediterranean was their lake (and really, Britain still holding Gibraltar indicates that the long-term goal of "managing" the Mediterranean is still in the national interest) have, so far as I can see, a significant debt to the citizens of these countries. To just decide, after decades of chaos (much of it unleashed by another Great Power, the United States, botch occupation of Iraq), that it isn't their problem any more is a moral choice.
Pretty short term problem, as MS did ship compatibility filters for Office 2007+ formats for older versions of Word. Yes, interoperability between versions, particular from the transition from doc to docx was problematic, and I'd say 95% of the time OpenOffice/LibreOffice can handle MS's file formats. The problem is the 5%, and that's where our problems stemmed from. In the end, everyone was upgraded to Office 2010, which still does handle the newer variants of OOXML found in Office 2013 and 2016 without much of a hitch. In the end, whether we liked it or not (and we don't, Office is bloody expensive in any enterprise environment no matter how you slice it), unimpeded work flow is far more costly. If LibreOffice could ever get sufficient penetration to force more effort at interoperability, then we'd review it, but for now, Microsoft has us pretty firmly embedded in their ecosystem (and like I said, it's not like I like it, particularly as the newer subscription model feels more like being held hostage).
This... so much this. Segregate these devices, limit access via VLANs and firewalls. Yes, it may mean only a handful of other devices and workstations can touch these older devices, but you need to reduce the attack surface as much as possible.