Except it hasn't happened that way. The Internet is here and operates in a manner in which everyone is trying to protect. So, what is the solution to protecting it? Change how it has worked. In other words, fix something not broken.
Seriously, ICANN is one of the things that really isn't much of a concern right now, but of course, we need to alter it because someone may feel disenfranchised or something. The disenfranchised meaning corporations and various interest groups that might well work to make the Internet less open. It's not like you're going to get a vote on ICANN any more than you did before. Not that you'd want to, seeing as the only thing that can be done with it now is shit it up.
I have no intention of voting for Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't suggest to anyone to do so either. She's got experience, but doesn't look like she'll do anything useful with it.
In fact, I really have no idea who I *will* vote for.
I'm simply stating what seems to be the case even now.
Sanders has some interesting play in small states, but I still don't know if he has play where it counts, especially where the Democratic machine is strongest. Remember, he's a small state politician, so he already speaks the language for states like New Hampshire and Iowa. It's no surprise he's doing well there.
Not voting for Sanders either. I think we need someone who knows how to make the government work more efficiently, not someone looking for a reason to accumulate more tax money, even if it is supposedly from the "rich". I won't complain too bitterly about single payer health care, of course. I have no children and it probably won't go broke before I die, but I can't in good conscience advocate it as a good practice for the US even if I would benefit from it while it works.
As for the Republicans, no Republican currently in the race has a prayer at winning at the general election. Trump fixed that, although they barely needed the "help". Trump will turn that into a certainty if *he* wins because he's a joke in a national election. But even if he doesn't, the party is putting up a bunch of Romneys and Cruz. The "Romneys" would put up the best fight, but like the actual Romney, they have no chance because they're uninspiring and the demographics are still against them. Romney was not so far away in numbers, but that percent might have well have been the Grand Canyon because the Dems have the various minority groups in a lock and are giving away more goodies for the independents. The Republicans have nothing to buy votes with except stuff that plays to angry white people.
Cruz is in the same place as Trump, a portion of angry Republicans who are just splitting up an already losing percentage. Hopefully, if the Republicans lose this time around, they get the notion of out how to actually run someone who can win a general election. Not holding my breath however.
I would definitely buy a smart gun if I could. Having a weapon for self defense does have the risk of it being turned on you.
However, I would need to be convinced that it would work when I needed it to. If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.
They need to have a mechanism that is nearly foolproof before I'd ever consider that rule. Otherwise, it's a license for the makers of shitty smart gun technology to mint money while no one is any safer.
Your local temperature will be almost irrelevant. It could be warmer, it could even be colder. Even now, the atmosphere doesn't cool or warm the surface in a uniform fashion everywhere.
Adding 2 degrees to the entire system is adding energy to the whole world's climate. That could express itself by more energetic behavior which could generate locally colder temperatures in certain places and certainly much warmer temperatures in others.
In reality, you'll see low lying islands go underwater and also some coastal flooding due to rising sea levels because ice packs are big enough to have a global effect if they start melting even slightly faster. Bad news, but not the end of the world. Global warming doesn't mean we end up like Venus, it means we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands due to displaced persons and loss of coastal cities.
For that reason, I think we need to be less concerned about taking extreme measures for "stopping" AGW as much as we should be starting evacuation preparations for the point in the future where we need to get people out of there. In the meantime we'll be able to replace our carbon releasing power sources on a more attainable timeframe.
Why not? If you lose, you're dead and have other things to worry about. If you win, you're richer.
Well for a Titanic bet anyway.
For GW, since the warming is unlikely to be stopped any time soon, they might as well make some money on it to buy some A/C in the meantime. I would not suggest buying any land on low lying islands, however.
Mostly because it requires coordination and some special skills. The 9/11 terrorists needed to learn how to fly just enough to hit buildings and that required a number of attackers, good organization, and backing. That doesn't mean that the capability didn't exist for planes to fly into buildings for decades, it just wasn't used.
You will also note that hijackings are not a "thing" like they were in the 70s and 80s. 9/11 was both the worst case scenario, and immediately made hijacking much, much harder afterward because hijacking depends on the passengers thinking they have a chance to live if they don't all rush you and take you down. Without that hope of survival, the passengers' fear now becomes what will happen if they *don't* attack the hijackers.
If someone wanted to hit the US power grid and has that capability, they're not going to do it until they can get maximum effect from it, because as soon as it becomes realized as a threat, the grid will not be as simple a target anymore. It will get a lot more secure very quickly. They will get one shot at it.
So to answer your question, lone hackers *can't* make a grid failure happen with their limited capabilities, and state actors will want to keep their target unaware of the actual threat until it is needed, lest the killing stroke be blunted.
Where do you think they get critical security patches from?:)
And in case you don't recall, no one needed to hook up Iran's nuclear facilities to the Internet for Stuxnet to work.
Speaking as someone who had to clean viruses off of floppy disks before the Internet was really a thing, I can tell you that you don't need the Internet to get hacked if someone knows what they are doing and are dedicated to making it happen. The Internet makes remote intrusion and exploits many times more effective than otherwise, but it isn't the only tool in the toolbox for a hacker who really wants to get into a secured system.
As someone who has the daily job of making the case for security for my company, I can tell you that its not really laziness. It's an inability to understand and properly assign risk.
Businesses who don't understand risks make poor prioritization decisions.
Most places I have worked at do not complain about security, they just believe they have higher priorities for the time of the various staff and resources we have and don't assign the resources for all of the projects needed. And even I have to admit, it's not very useful to have excellent security for a product that no one is using because it lacks features or capacity. Having said that, it is still something you have to at least plan for build in from the very beginning, even if you don't spend all your time or money on it. Otherwise, you will be playing an even more expensive game of catch-up, which even fewer companies want to do.
Michigan's state government is incompetent. It isn't necessary for there to be some sort of plot to kill people for a government to be incompetent.
There are some days I wonder if comments like that are just denial on the part of people who can't believe even a bankrupt, oversized, inefficient government bureaucracy can kill people, so it must be some sort of plot.
I agree that poor people take the brunt of the incompetence, but that's simply because the rich people have folks on the payroll looking out for their interests when resources get tight.
Yes, and no. Yes, there are many Roman bridges and engineering works that are long gone. There are also changing needs.
On the other hand, it shows that you *can* make things that last, which tends to make me wonder why, with modern technology, we haven't. It's not just luck, either. The Pons Fabrico, a bridge built in Rome in 62 BC is still in use, mostly unchanged in all of those two thousand years, and actively in use that entire time. We know how the Romans made things last, and although there are loads and requirements which would tax such relatively primitive structures, you'd think we'd be able to improve our designs to meet our more demanding usage.
Of course, you do have to maintain things and I doubt those bridges and dams were just built and never maintained ever again, but there does feel like there is a certain amount of impermanence to many things we're building these days.
I need a fifth G. I have an iPhone with a 6, which means my G's are two behind. I can tolerate maybe being one G behind, but this is getting ridiculous.
True, but that limits the scope of what you can try someone for. Although they're making inroads towards making jaywalking while talking on a cell phone a National Security issue, they haven't quite gotten there yet.
Seriously, though, most judges will question the need for a closed court unless there is a very serious reason. Terrorism is one of those reasons, but again local cops don't have that sort of clout. They simply want to do wire taps again and encryption prevents this unless they have the keys or can get them with a warrant.
Since when has Apple or Google actually been noticeably affected by US law? They certainly don't have to send their money to the US government, why would they have to obey some silly California state law?
I'd love to see the state government threaten them. Sorry, I meant, "try and threaten them".
The solar system extends to the end of the Oort Cloud which is about 100,000 AU away from the Sun. That's much, much farther than this object.
If this object is as big as they think it is (assuming it exists, of course) then it could have observable effects on objects in the Oort Cloud and the Kupier Belt, which is very important to the solar system.
More to the point, it makes certain planetary formation models make a lot more sense which is certainly worth considering this to be a part of the Solar System, even if it was very far away. In those formation models, this planet actually formed between Jupiter and Saturn and was ejected from that position by the larger planets' gravity, and is thus a real, if obscure member of the solar system, just like Pete Best was a real, but obscure member of the Beatles who also had to leave early on.
It's a matter of how you define the subject. I agree that the Pope has no advantage in talking about the existence of God, however, if someone else wanted to tell the pope that he understood Catholicism better than said pope, that other person would be on very shaky ground.
The pope could very well be considered difficult to argue with on the matter of Catholicism, mainly because he has not only studied it for his entire adult life, but because he gets to change it when he feels he needs to, thus putting any non-pope on shifting ground.
That said, it is not impossible to argue with the pope, even on Catholicism. Certainly a lot of people have done so in the past. And now that there are technically two popes, it does get a little confused.
Nevertheless, it isn't something you would undertake lightly and hope to prevail.
Marriage used to have real property and public order implications because it used to be almost a major transaction. The reason it was illegal was due to that as much as due to morality.
Note that our views on love and marriage are anachronistic against the time period where these laws were enacted.
It's mostly a historical thing. There are people who were completely legitimate "liberals" and "progressives" in earlier times who would have found adultery and homosexuality abominable. Their "radicalism" or "liberalism" was the ability for all men to vote, or for the government to not shut down the free press. Of course, there were always people who thought that women should be able to vote, or homosexuals shouldn't be hung, but those were very, very radical people.
The important thing to realist is that most (although not all) of today's conservatives espouse principles that would have made them liberals in the past.
In effect, the "blue" states kept moving down the radical slope, and the conservatives simply kept trying to maintain the status quo that had been won by their liberal forebears. In that fight, the progressives would try to convince everyone that their reforms wouldn't mean that society was falling into a (relative) moral abyss by changing the existing order. So blue states will have laws that reflect what used to be the bright line where they assumed no one would ever go over. It was their response to the "slippery slope" arguments that conservatives made. It's not that they were just trying to appease conservatives... the liberals of the time actually believed that something like adultery could not be allowed to be legal.
I don't like this protocol, but to be honest, this is no worse than when the cops could listen in on phone conversations directly via wire tap. Your privacy is not really impaired any more than it would have been in the past. There are other ways to communicate securely other than via voice and there are techniques that spies and organized criminals have used for decades to communicate under the expectation of a phone tap.
They need a standard that law enforcement can use in a court of law. Hacking firmware and colluding with corporations may or may not be happening, but it is almost certainly not going to be a capability that they want to advertise or even admit to in open court, even if they can get the court to admit it as evidence.
Yes, the existing spy agencies can alert the police to start investigations which can use parallel construction to generate a prosecution, but the police don't want to do this all the time, and probably don't have access to most of the data in the first place. They want a "phone tap" whose incriminating recording they can get a warrant for and then play in open court. Until they can break encryption via a legal, public protocol, they have no direct method of making a successful tap on that line which can be used for that purpose.
It might be better to say that he's as qualified as anyone else to make an assessment, but he's getting time in periodicals to discuss something he's not an expert on because he's perceived to be an expert in something else, and his reputation has bled over.
For instance, I would like to believe that we'll have moved at least some of humanity off the planet in the next 10,000 years, but at this point, nothing suggests that this is actually going to happen. That we have the capability to do so is not really in doubt. We also have the ability to feed every man, woman and child on Earth, but we don't because we have other priorities.
Technology has not made our lives worse, but it hasn't necessarily made them better. Longer, perhaps, but longer does not always mean better.
A lot depends on what you value and your perception of the world. There are people living today who would commit suicide over having to live at a 19th Century level, let alone a 10th Century level of technology or culture. However, as we know, millions and billions of people lived in those periods over time, the great majority of which did not kill themselves.
There is nothing that describes how science does not necessarily improve our lives like the term "first world problems". People live and die, and feel miserable about not having things that 99.99999% of humans have never had or even known existed.
Ultimately, your attitude and ability to maintain perspective is probably your best chance at really feeling happy in this world. There *are* marvels and wonders out there, but we're so used to them, that you probably need to study history to really understand how good we have it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it hasn't happened that way. The Internet is here and operates in a manner in which everyone is trying to protect. So, what is the solution to protecting it? Change how it has worked. In other words, fix something not broken.
Seriously, ICANN is one of the things that really isn't much of a concern right now, but of course, we need to alter it because someone may feel disenfranchised or something. The disenfranchised meaning corporations and various interest groups that might well work to make the Internet less open. It's not like you're going to get a vote on ICANN any more than you did before. Not that you'd want to, seeing as the only thing that can be done with it now is shit it up.
I have no intention of voting for Hillary Clinton. I wouldn't suggest to anyone to do so either. She's got experience, but doesn't look like she'll do anything useful with it.
In fact, I really have no idea who I *will* vote for.
I'm simply stating what seems to be the case even now.
Sanders has some interesting play in small states, but I still don't know if he has play where it counts, especially where the Democratic machine is strongest. Remember, he's a small state politician, so he already speaks the language for states like New Hampshire and Iowa. It's no surprise he's doing well there.
Not voting for Sanders either. I think we need someone who knows how to make the government work more efficiently, not someone looking for a reason to accumulate more tax money, even if it is supposedly from the "rich". I won't complain too bitterly about single payer health care, of course. I have no children and it probably won't go broke before I die, but I can't in good conscience advocate it as a good practice for the US even if I would benefit from it while it works.
As for the Republicans, no Republican currently in the race has a prayer at winning at the general election. Trump fixed that, although they barely needed the "help". Trump will turn that into a certainty if *he* wins because he's a joke in a national election. But even if he doesn't, the party is putting up a bunch of Romneys and Cruz. The "Romneys" would put up the best fight, but like the actual Romney, they have no chance because they're uninspiring and the demographics are still against them. Romney was not so far away in numbers, but that percent might have well have been the Grand Canyon because the Dems have the various minority groups in a lock and are giving away more goodies for the independents. The Republicans have nothing to buy votes with except stuff that plays to angry white people.
Cruz is in the same place as Trump, a portion of angry Republicans who are just splitting up an already losing percentage. Hopefully, if the Republicans lose this time around, they get the notion of out how to actually run someone who can win a general election. Not holding my breath however.
I would definitely buy a smart gun if I could. Having a weapon for self defense does have the risk of it being turned on you.
However, I would need to be convinced that it would work when I needed it to. If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.
They need to have a mechanism that is nearly foolproof before I'd ever consider that rule. Otherwise, it's a license for the makers of shitty smart gun technology to mint money while no one is any safer.
Your local temperature will be almost irrelevant. It could be warmer, it could even be colder. Even now, the atmosphere doesn't cool or warm the surface in a uniform fashion everywhere.
Adding 2 degrees to the entire system is adding energy to the whole world's climate. That could express itself by more energetic behavior which could generate locally colder temperatures in certain places and certainly much warmer temperatures in others.
In reality, you'll see low lying islands go underwater and also some coastal flooding due to rising sea levels because ice packs are big enough to have a global effect if they start melting even slightly faster. Bad news, but not the end of the world. Global warming doesn't mean we end up like Venus, it means we have a humanitarian crisis on our hands due to displaced persons and loss of coastal cities.
For that reason, I think we need to be less concerned about taking extreme measures for "stopping" AGW as much as we should be starting evacuation preparations for the point in the future where we need to get people out of there. In the meantime we'll be able to replace our carbon releasing power sources on a more attainable timeframe.
Why not? If you lose, you're dead and have other things to worry about. If you win, you're richer.
Well for a Titanic bet anyway.
For GW, since the warming is unlikely to be stopped any time soon, they might as well make some money on it to buy some A/C in the meantime. I would not suggest buying any land on low lying islands, however.
Clinton is still by far the favorite. The only shocking thing is that it isn't as certain as it was before.
Mostly because it requires coordination and some special skills. The 9/11 terrorists needed to learn how to fly just enough to hit buildings and that required a number of attackers, good organization, and backing. That doesn't mean that the capability didn't exist for planes to fly into buildings for decades, it just wasn't used.
You will also note that hijackings are not a "thing" like they were in the 70s and 80s. 9/11 was both the worst case scenario, and immediately made hijacking much, much harder afterward because hijacking depends on the passengers thinking they have a chance to live if they don't all rush you and take you down. Without that hope of survival, the passengers' fear now becomes what will happen if they *don't* attack the hijackers.
If someone wanted to hit the US power grid and has that capability, they're not going to do it until they can get maximum effect from it, because as soon as it becomes realized as a threat, the grid will not be as simple a target anymore. It will get a lot more secure very quickly. They will get one shot at it.
So to answer your question, lone hackers *can't* make a grid failure happen with their limited capabilities, and state actors will want to keep their target unaware of the actual threat until it is needed, lest the killing stroke be blunted.
Where do you think they get critical security patches from? :)
And in case you don't recall, no one needed to hook up Iran's nuclear facilities to the Internet for Stuxnet to work.
Speaking as someone who had to clean viruses off of floppy disks before the Internet was really a thing, I can tell you that you don't need the Internet to get hacked if someone knows what they are doing and are dedicated to making it happen. The Internet makes remote intrusion and exploits many times more effective than otherwise, but it isn't the only tool in the toolbox for a hacker who really wants to get into a secured system.
As someone who has the daily job of making the case for security for my company, I can tell you that its not really laziness. It's an inability to understand and properly assign risk.
Businesses who don't understand risks make poor prioritization decisions.
Most places I have worked at do not complain about security, they just believe they have higher priorities for the time of the various staff and resources we have and don't assign the resources for all of the projects needed. And even I have to admit, it's not very useful to have excellent security for a product that no one is using because it lacks features or capacity. Having said that, it is still something you have to at least plan for build in from the very beginning, even if you don't spend all your time or money on it. Otherwise, you will be playing an even more expensive game of catch-up, which even fewer companies want to do.
Save money, yes. Punish Democratic voters? Highly unlikely. Kill poor people? Pure, unadulterated hyperbole.
Michigan's state government is incompetent. It isn't necessary for there to be some sort of plot to kill people for a government to be incompetent.
There are some days I wonder if comments like that are just denial on the part of people who can't believe even a bankrupt, oversized, inefficient government bureaucracy can kill people, so it must be some sort of plot.
I agree that poor people take the brunt of the incompetence, but that's simply because the rich people have folks on the payroll looking out for their interests when resources get tight.
Yes, and no. Yes, there are many Roman bridges and engineering works that are long gone. There are also changing needs.
On the other hand, it shows that you *can* make things that last, which tends to make me wonder why, with modern technology, we haven't. It's not just luck, either. The Pons Fabrico, a bridge built in Rome in 62 BC is still in use, mostly unchanged in all of those two thousand years, and actively in use that entire time. We know how the Romans made things last, and although there are loads and requirements which would tax such relatively primitive structures, you'd think we'd be able to improve our designs to meet our more demanding usage.
Of course, you do have to maintain things and I doubt those bridges and dams were just built and never maintained ever again, but there does feel like there is a certain amount of impermanence to many things we're building these days.
I need a fifth G. I have an iPhone with a 6, which means my G's are two behind. I can tolerate maybe being one G behind, but this is getting ridiculous.
True, but that limits the scope of what you can try someone for. Although they're making inroads towards making jaywalking while talking on a cell phone a National Security issue, they haven't quite gotten there yet.
Seriously, though, most judges will question the need for a closed court unless there is a very serious reason. Terrorism is one of those reasons, but again local cops don't have that sort of clout. They simply want to do wire taps again and encryption prevents this unless they have the keys or can get them with a warrant.
You can't Think Different, if you think differently. That would mess up the brand message. Duh.
Since when has Apple or Google actually been noticeably affected by US law? They certainly don't have to send their money to the US government, why would they have to obey some silly California state law?
I'd love to see the state government threaten them. Sorry, I meant, "try and threaten them".
The solar system extends to the end of the Oort Cloud which is about 100,000 AU away from the Sun. That's much, much farther than this object.
If this object is as big as they think it is (assuming it exists, of course) then it could have observable effects on objects in the Oort Cloud and the Kupier Belt, which is very important to the solar system.
More to the point, it makes certain planetary formation models make a lot more sense which is certainly worth considering this to be a part of the Solar System, even if it was very far away. In those formation models, this planet actually formed between Jupiter and Saturn and was ejected from that position by the larger planets' gravity, and is thus a real, if obscure member of the solar system, just like Pete Best was a real, but obscure member of the Beatles who also had to leave early on.
So you're saying that there's the Fear of a Black Planet?
Because, if so, I already discovered it in 1990.
And there's a tenth planet called Eris!
It's a matter of how you define the subject. I agree that the Pope has no advantage in talking about the existence of God, however, if someone else wanted to tell the pope that he understood Catholicism better than said pope, that other person would be on very shaky ground.
The pope could very well be considered difficult to argue with on the matter of Catholicism, mainly because he has not only studied it for his entire adult life, but because he gets to change it when he feels he needs to, thus putting any non-pope on shifting ground.
That said, it is not impossible to argue with the pope, even on Catholicism. Certainly a lot of people have done so in the past. And now that there are technically two popes, it does get a little confused.
Nevertheless, it isn't something you would undertake lightly and hope to prevail.
Marriage used to have real property and public order implications because it used to be almost a major transaction. The reason it was illegal was due to that as much as due to morality.
Note that our views on love and marriage are anachronistic against the time period where these laws were enacted.
It's mostly a historical thing. There are people who were completely legitimate "liberals" and "progressives" in earlier times who would have found adultery and homosexuality abominable. Their "radicalism" or "liberalism" was the ability for all men to vote, or for the government to not shut down the free press. Of course, there were always people who thought that women should be able to vote, or homosexuals shouldn't be hung, but those were very, very radical people.
The important thing to realist is that most (although not all) of today's conservatives espouse principles that would have made them liberals in the past.
In effect, the "blue" states kept moving down the radical slope, and the conservatives simply kept trying to maintain the status quo that had been won by their liberal forebears. In that fight, the progressives would try to convince everyone that their reforms wouldn't mean that society was falling into a (relative) moral abyss by changing the existing order. So blue states will have laws that reflect what used to be the bright line where they assumed no one would ever go over. It was their response to the "slippery slope" arguments that conservatives made. It's not that they were just trying to appease conservatives... the liberals of the time actually believed that something like adultery could not be allowed to be legal.
I don't like this protocol, but to be honest, this is no worse than when the cops could listen in on phone conversations directly via wire tap. Your privacy is not really impaired any more than it would have been in the past. There are other ways to communicate securely other than via voice and there are techniques that spies and organized criminals have used for decades to communicate under the expectation of a phone tap.
They need a standard that law enforcement can use in a court of law. Hacking firmware and colluding with corporations may or may not be happening, but it is almost certainly not going to be a capability that they want to advertise or even admit to in open court, even if they can get the court to admit it as evidence.
Yes, the existing spy agencies can alert the police to start investigations which can use parallel construction to generate a prosecution, but the police don't want to do this all the time, and probably don't have access to most of the data in the first place. They want a "phone tap" whose incriminating recording they can get a warrant for and then play in open court. Until they can break encryption via a legal, public protocol, they have no direct method of making a successful tap on that line which can be used for that purpose.
It might be better to say that he's as qualified as anyone else to make an assessment, but he's getting time in periodicals to discuss something he's not an expert on because he's perceived to be an expert in something else, and his reputation has bled over.
For instance, I would like to believe that we'll have moved at least some of humanity off the planet in the next 10,000 years, but at this point, nothing suggests that this is actually going to happen. That we have the capability to do so is not really in doubt. We also have the ability to feed every man, woman and child on Earth, but we don't because we have other priorities.
Technology has not made our lives worse, but it hasn't necessarily made them better. Longer, perhaps, but longer does not always mean better.
A lot depends on what you value and your perception of the world. There are people living today who would commit suicide over having to live at a 19th Century level, let alone a 10th Century level of technology or culture. However, as we know, millions and billions of people lived in those periods over time, the great majority of which did not kill themselves.
There is nothing that describes how science does not necessarily improve our lives like the term "first world problems". People live and die, and feel miserable about not having things that 99.99999% of humans have never had or even known existed.
Ultimately, your attitude and ability to maintain perspective is probably your best chance at really feeling happy in this world. There *are* marvels and wonders out there, but we're so used to them, that you probably need to study history to really understand how good we have it.