Sure it is. All he has to do is show evidence of what is the primary driver of global warming. If that primary driver isn't humans, then voila, it's done!
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation.
If this is true then there would be evidence of it (which there is not).
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose.
A lot of good research has been done on the topic. No single study shapes the view of the scientific community. Living in denial is fine... as long as you don't stand in the way of people trying to address the issue.
If you aren't already, you should be using SafeScript which allows you to block lots of fingerprinting stuff. If you think you don't need it then you should check out BrowserLeaks to see how horribly wrong you are.:)
the entire idea, since I first heard it, of 'machines taking everyones jobs' is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I disbelieve it'll ever happen, I am also certain to a very high degree of confidence that it won't be allowed to happen, either. Machines are tools. Our species creates tools to help us. Creating tools that harm us, as a species, is a ridiculous concept, always has been, always will be.
LOL! Machines aren't going to take everyone's job, just the repetitive stuff. As for harmful tools, what do you think guns, bombs and nukes are? They exist for only to harm other humans. Nukes in particular are harmful to the species which is why we are terrified of nuclear war, not just because it will devastate both sides but because of how damaging it would be for humanity.
There will be jobs for people. You may not see what they'll be just yet. You, and everyone else, needs to calm down, relax, and stop channelling your inner Chicken Little, the sky is emphatically not falling. Everything is going to be just fine. This is no different than when any other new technology came along; there is a Growing Pains period, followed by a New Age of Prosperity because of the new technology.
Apparently you are unwilling to recognize it but during those "Growing Pains" a lot of people died. Just because you fail to recognize that automation is eliminating jobs far faster than it's creating them doesn't mean it isn't happening.
if the New Technology ends up not benefitting us? Then the New Technology will get deprecated, disregarded, and scrapped.
HAHAHAHA! It only needs to benefit some people and the people that own it most definitely will keep it because it benefits them greatly. You are ignoring some very basic truths about humanity, primarily the willingness of a small group of people to fuck over large group of people if it's profitable.
We all know they are pushing as hard as they can to remove humans from the equation and it's going to happen slowly. They'll reduce the number of situations where humans are needed slowly but surely and eventually none will be needed. This is just how it is.
The software doesn't control them, it merely provided suggestions. The people selling the parts are the ones that are setting the price. Greedy humans are to blame here.
Most people hear "autopilot" and think self-driving. Just about every Tesla video on YouTube had some idiot in the driver's seat who thinks it's self-driving.
Maybe it's a secret plot to eliminate people who disregard information that they are provided by experts.;)
Anyway, in this case, it was someone who fell asleep at the wheel, not someone who misunderstood the purpose of autopilot.
They may but this is due to the proliferation of insecure software. There needs to be a focus on secure software. Secure software isn't perfect but as each flaw is found, the software is quickly updated until people stop finding flaws.
You only want to give the UN power to 'smash capitalism' via arbitrary taxes, but your not against capitalism
A) It would effect all economies, just capitalism which thrives on pollution would be hit hardest. B) The tax wouldn't be arbitrary, it's the same cost as cleaning up the pollution.
Bullshit! Take you watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) approach elsewhere.
Your behavior on slashdot has been consistent with someone with untreated mental illness.
What is needed for EVs to take off is a safety regulation compliant, not too uncomfortable, basic vehicle that can be driven away for $15000 USD -- preferably less.
Since the batteries are the pricey part of EVs, what we really need is for the automation issues with the Gigafactory to be completely solved so that they can scale up and out to many other sites.
Check the history of eastern Europe and the USSR. Capitalism is fucking clean in comparison. All you have is a theory, Capitalism has history.
A) I'm not speaking about doing away with capitalism, you nitwit. B) I'm implying we need regulation because capitalism by definition is not under the direct control of the government. C) Not sure what your issue is with the UN because you have yet to make a point.
If we're going to get a handle on the environmentally destructive nature of capitalism then we're going to have to legislate that environmental capital be a real thing in all UN nations. That is that when you pollute the environment that you are held financially accountable for the costs required to remove it from the environment.
This tragedy of the commons has been going on far too long.
The easy way to accomplish this is to use a system language and a debugger.;)
On a serious note: do you really want a scripting language "executing potentially dangerous operations"? Seriously, think about it, they aren't signed text files and they are trivial to modify. Sure, there's no agreed upon ELF signing convention but at least it's significantly more difficult for a script to modify.
I know I'll be burned at the stake by those who are in love with Python but that doesn't invalidate my points.
So either change the default or wrap the default serialization in a checksum;
Right because a hacker could never find a way around a checksum... -_-
either way it's trivial and leaps+bounds ahead of notserialising whole objects at a time.
And it's that verified simplicity that makes it such an easy target.
A developer who won't be bothered to checksum persisted data when it's serialised in an object isn't going to suddenly think it's a good idea when they have to do it field-by-field:-/
The point is that if they are using the methods in which the data is normally set that they do not have to write additional validation code. This isn't rocket science.
you should avoid being condescending to someone who obviously knows what they are talking about.
Now that's funny.;)
IOW "you started it"... with "excuse yourself from the conversation".
Right because "Okay then, smartypants" counts for not.
Regarding that distinction - your assertion of methods doing the input validation is just as wrong - it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway,
If it passes input validation then it's valid data, period. We're talking about vulnerabilities that arise from invalid data being used, per the article.
it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway, so there's no real distinction between the two in terms of danger/safety.
You seem to be completely oblivious to why they are doing away with it.
You know, for "someone who obviously knows what they are talking about," you sure seem uninformed on the subject matter.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn’t possible to met the judges demand.
Sure it is. All he has to do is show evidence of what is the primary driver of global warming. If that primary driver isn't humans, then voila, it's done!
First, you have to prove global warming is happening
That's already been demonstrated by the temperature of the sea rising.
Pruitt may contend this is a normal fluctuation.
If this is true then there would be evidence of it (which there is not).
The “consensus view” on global warming being manmade is based on a flawed study of the papers at a climate conference where the famed 97% figure arose.
A lot of good research has been done on the topic. No single study shapes the view of the scientific community. Living in denial is fine... as long as you don't stand in the way of people trying to address the issue.
If you aren't already, you should be using SafeScript which allows you to block lots of fingerprinting stuff. If you think you don't need it then you should check out BrowserLeaks to see how horribly wrong you are. :)
Do people not remember the joys that Apple Maps provides us with? ;)
the entire idea, since I first heard it, of 'machines taking everyones jobs' is utterly ridiculous. Not only do I disbelieve it'll ever happen, I am also certain to a very high degree of confidence that it won't be allowed to happen, either. Machines are tools. Our species creates tools to help us. Creating tools that harm us, as a species, is a ridiculous concept, always has been, always will be.
LOL! Machines aren't going to take everyone's job, just the repetitive stuff. As for harmful tools, what do you think guns, bombs and nukes are? They exist for only to harm other humans. Nukes in particular are harmful to the species which is why we are terrified of nuclear war, not just because it will devastate both sides but because of how damaging it would be for humanity.
There will be jobs for people. You may not see what they'll be just yet. You, and everyone else, needs to calm down, relax, and stop channelling your inner Chicken Little, the sky is emphatically not falling. Everything is going to be just fine. This is no different than when any other new technology came along; there is a Growing Pains period, followed by a New Age of Prosperity because of the new technology.
Apparently you are unwilling to recognize it but during those "Growing Pains" a lot of people died. Just because you fail to recognize that automation is eliminating jobs far faster than it's creating them doesn't mean it isn't happening.
if the New Technology ends up not benefitting us? Then the New Technology will get deprecated, disregarded, and scrapped.
HAHAHAHA! It only needs to benefit some people and the people that own it most definitely will keep it because it benefits them greatly. You are ignoring some very basic truths about humanity, primarily the willingness of a small group of people to fuck over large group of people if it's profitable.
We all know they are pushing as hard as they can to remove humans from the equation and it's going to happen slowly. They'll reduce the number of situations where humans are needed slowly but surely and eventually none will be needed. This is just how it is.
The software doesn't control them, it merely provided suggestions. The people selling the parts are the ones that are setting the price. Greedy humans are to blame here.
This should clear it up for you.
Github has devs like... https://i.imgur.com/YREcU6d.gi...
Most people hear "autopilot" and think self-driving. Just about every Tesla video on YouTube had some idiot in the driver's seat who thinks it's self-driving.
Maybe it's a secret plot to eliminate people who disregard information that they are provided by experts. ;)
Anyway, in this case, it was someone who fell asleep at the wheel, not someone who misunderstood the purpose of autopilot.
How many human drivers safety passed that cop car without ramming into it?
How many of those human drivers were also asleep?
Sure... but that's not the purpose of autopilot. You seem to be under the impression that autopilot means autodriving which it is clearly not.
If you need antivirus software then you have already lost the security game.
The BND has a way into the very end of every DSN.
They may but this is due to the proliferation of insecure software. There needs to be a focus on secure software. Secure software isn't perfect but as each flaw is found, the software is quickly updated until people stop finding flaws.
You only want to give the UN power to 'smash capitalism' via arbitrary taxes, but your not against capitalism
A) It would effect all economies, just capitalism which thrives on pollution would be hit hardest.
B) The tax wouldn't be arbitrary, it's the same cost as cleaning up the pollution.
Bullshit! Take you watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) approach elsewhere.
Your behavior on slashdot has been consistent with someone with untreated mental illness.
...for encrypting all traffic to every site and even DNS.
What is needed for EVs to take off is a safety regulation compliant, not too uncomfortable, basic vehicle that can be driven away for $15000 USD -- preferably less.
Since the batteries are the pricey part of EVs, what we really need is for the automation issues with the Gigafactory to be completely solved so that they can scale up and out to many other sites.
Check the history of eastern Europe and the USSR. Capitalism is fucking clean in comparison. All you have is a theory, Capitalism has history.
A) I'm not speaking about doing away with capitalism, you nitwit.
B) I'm implying we need regulation because capitalism by definition is not under the direct control of the government.
C) Not sure what your issue is with the UN because you have yet to make a point.
If we're going to get a handle on the environmentally destructive nature of capitalism then we're going to have to legislate that environmental capital be a real thing in all UN nations. That is that when you pollute the environment that you are held financially accountable for the costs required to remove it from the environment.
This tragedy of the commons has been going on far too long.
Oh well since you got it all figured out, you should go tell the CBO that they are all stupid and replace them.
I guess you don't understand how lacking your understanding of government funding is.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the government still needs to be funded.
https://washingtonpost.com/93c...
Fanciful thinking doesn't change reality, it just drives the nation deeper into debt.
Increasing government revenues while lowering taxes.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Wow, you drank so much of that kool-aid that you're immune to facts. ;)
This what happens when you model your software after a house of cards.
Dumbest negotiator ever. His abject stupidity and blatant criminality is why he keeps getting owned in trade negotiations.
The easy way to accomplish this is to use a system language and a debugger. ;)
On a serious note: do you really want a scripting language "executing potentially dangerous operations"? Seriously, think about it, they aren't signed text files and they are trivial to modify. Sure, there's no agreed upon ELF signing convention but at least it's significantly more difficult for a script to modify.
I know I'll be burned at the stake by those who are in love with Python but that doesn't invalidate my points.
So either change the default or wrap the default serialization in a checksum;
Right because a hacker could never find a way around a checksum... -_-
either way it's trivial and leaps+bounds ahead of notserialising whole objects at a time.
And it's that verified simplicity that makes it such an easy target.
A developer who won't be bothered to checksum persisted data when it's serialised in an object isn't going to suddenly think it's a good idea when they have to do it field-by-field :-/
The point is that if they are using the methods in which the data is normally set that they do not have to write additional validation code. This isn't rocket science.
you should avoid being condescending to someone who obviously knows what they are talking about.
Now that's funny. ;)
IOW "you started it" ... with "excuse yourself from the conversation".
Right because "Okay then, smartypants" counts for not.
Regarding that distinction - your assertion of methods doing the input validation is just as wrong - it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway,
If it passes input validation then it's valid data, period. We're talking about vulnerabilities that arise from invalid data being used, per the article.
it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway, so there's no real distinction between the two in terms of danger/safety.
You seem to be completely oblivious to why they are doing away with it.
You know, for "someone who obviously knows what they are talking about," you sure seem uninformed on the subject matter.