I've been posting about this, and the spin some politicians are pushing is reprehensible. Recently, Arizona allowed fees to charge rooftop-based solar energy producers for the privilege of selling or donating electrons to others for use. A few incredible or insane politicians are trying to spin it as if solar adopters are leeches despite the fact that they already pay for interconnect fees and all the excess energy they use.
The alternative, of course, is to go completely off the grid using your own batteries, which will end up costing the power companies (and the politicians in their pockets) even more.
But it's not all without a shred of truth. There are definitely some costs associated with high adoption rates of solar, and the breakdown is pretty easy to explain:
Substations convert and distribute 220 to your neighborhood, from high tension wires from the power plants.
Substations convert one direction only -- from the high-voltage to the line voltage.
High usage is generally in the warm daytime, through early evening.
Solar covers most of the high usage times. Some companies charge more for energy use during these times.
This works great for the power companies when a few people on one substation have some solar power generators, because they feed it back into the grid for use by those without solar. As a result, the power company can charge the full amount for the electrons used (often at higher prices), but they don't have to transfer it long distances which inevitably carries loss due to capacitance and resistance. And they get all of this without investing in the cost of increased production at the power plants.
This also works great for the solar generators, because they reduce their use during the most expensive times, and usually push themselves into a lower usage tier due to overall reduced usage. A household that uses 500kWh might only draw 100kWh net from the grid over a month, and the first 100 are usually very cheap. Some places pay for excess electrons put onto the grid, others do not.
But here's the limitation: if all your neighbors have solar, it will exceed consumption during times of bright sunlight. In other words, the substation will send out no energy (nobody needs it), and in fact cannot backfeed it to other substations. This can cause a real issue when there's a surplus. Line voltage may even go up from 110 to around 130. This is when they need energy storage. Batteries are one method, but flywheels can work well, too. They could spin up a flywheel to consume the excess energy, then release it later as-needed (e.g. a dark cloud). In fact, they can spin up a flywheel at nighttime, too, when they have excess production, to smooth out daytime use. It's not just for independent generating stations, but this infrastructure will smooth out their plants for normal use, too.
Some unscrupulous legislators are trying to saddle solar generators with the cost of those who choose not to use solar. They claim exactly the opposite, that the solar producers are driving up costs. Really, they're making a needed upgrade more obvious and in any case, there is literally no way they are "driving up costs" by reducing their own usage. That fails the basic 5th grader test.
Localizing the storage is far more efficient than sending it hundreds of miles, plus it future proofs the obvious issues of people inevitably moving away from coal and natural gas generators. These local storage solutions or backfeeding substations should be pushed by all, even those without solar generation.
Plague is easily treated today. It's just a bacterium, and it doesn't even spread from person to person without blood exchange. That's like one of the dumbest things I've heard, only interesting because plague once killed many people.
I'd be far more worried about smallpox, an easily created virus that has few people immunized these days.
That is almost certainly illegal. If nothing else, it'd be tortuous interference, clearly designed to harm. Using burner phones is contributory evidence to fraud by showing mal intent.
It makes a mockery of the idea of journalistic integrity. The beheading video is billed as an ISIS propaganda piece, so does anyone actually think that adding more propaganda would legitimize it? Methinks not.
There is simply no good from adding corporate enforced! bias, for funding or whatever. The objectionable parts are not the news, nor a beheading. The objectionable part is the context, which includes things like trolls or even auto-starting videos on facebook. I've dropped people for less, for sharing auto-starting gore videos.
Consumers should have a choice to watch or not, Editors should use discretion, Newscasters should add context and background for proper interpretation.
But for all that is holy and truthful, forcing propaganda into news just to be broadcast is the worst idea I've ever heard.
A counterexample would be skill levels (3,1,3,3,7) with a median of 3 and mean above 3. In neither of those definitions are half below average, being 1 or 2, and 4.
Simple math would say at least half would be less than or equal to the median.
Of course, simple math rarely works here to quantify except at the extremes. People have different abilities in different areas, and gray matter is plastic. It changes, and even that rate of change matters.
The point was to provide a sandbox, among other things. That freed up a lot of issues with security (although we know how that story ended) and issues with operating systems.
At this point, hitting a TSA security line, rather than trying to pass through it, or just skipping that entirely and turning a good, honest, domestically available, AR-15 on a little-league crowd somewhere in Iowa would be at least as scary and way easier...
I concur. Everyone is upset about the imagery from the boston marathon, and it was downright scary. Now imagine if those two people had AR-15s and a backpack full of ammo instead, especially if they started at opposite ends of a block and worked their way in.
The imagery wouldn't be as scary as limbs blown off, but far, far more people would've died.
Apple's iphone doesn't have a removable battery because (they say) it would take extra packaging, and that would reduce the size of the actual battery. Having taken one of those things apart, I don't think they're being sneaky... it looks true and makes for a far more solid, self-contained product without worries of battery doors falling off.
Does your first paragraph apply to your second paragraph? Non-removable batteries in phones is not necessarily sneaky or tricky, especially if they provide a painless battery replacement service. ifixit does a breakdown, and says the battery is extremely difficult to replace by the end user, which could imply planned obsolescence. But phones generally go obsolete after 2-5 years anyway as the tech increases, especially with smartphones, and the battery will last that long (although it doesn't have terrific battery life as it is).
If you have actual data to add, e.g. their justification (right or wrong), then post it. Otherwise, add some value with your whiny emotional objection, or else piss off. Coward.
I ran into this issue when my iPhone was downloading email and roaming.
ATT billed me $500 and I wouldn't pay it. They tried to blame Apple and I informed them that the iPhone was their issue, too, as they were the only carrier for it. As it turns out, customer service is really collections, and we had a fine yelling match. Finally the lady agreed to send it up the line, and I had her read me exactly what she was going to send, since she did not have my interests at heart.
They did reverse the charges, and apple added the disable roaming option.
That's a good link, and shows that their grammar wasn't perfect. It is, however, a "style" book and discusses how to read n write good like and common misused words; it isn't strictly a grammar book.
One of the biggest complaints I normally see is that S&W is too pedantic, and the claim that English is a living language and changes, and that White screwed up the language when it was published and adopted by so many universities. But, that very claim that it's living and morphable is the same thing they're annoyed with (or rather, "with which they are annoyed"). S&W codified things, to make the language a little more understandable and less willy-nilly for proper writing. They changed it (by deprecating many poor or ambiguous uses) and to most detractors, this is the problem... changing a living language.
I'm gazing across my bookshelf full of O Reilly books, Knuth's series, TCP/IP Illustrated, and others... but the most important books are more mundane:
Godel Escher Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, and Alice in Wonderland
Both of these books encompass the thinking and mindset which will make you a better programmer by planting the seed of logic, states, and recursion, and nourishing the hell out of it. It will massage the pathways to make someone actually want to be a programmer.
you are conflating existing general rules with specific-to-drone rules
I'm extrapolating existing RC rules and overregulation of commercial UAS (i.e., the complete denying of any certificate for commercial use, whether LOS or not).
I've read the FAA rules, several times, over the past 5 years (and the hobbyist rule once for when I was flying RC planes decades ago), specifically how they apply to commercial use. I've spoken with multiple hobbyists and cam operators for movies. I am close friends with the founder of the first affordable heli autopilot.
That is to say, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say drone rules are overregulated because it even includes aircraft that maintain line of sight and follow all hobbyist rules.
we've had at least TWO OTHER topics about this in the past month, and i keep covering the same ground cause people dont bother to read the actual regulations.
You however, are spouting. Every single one of your posts on the first page of your history is a whiny crybaby post completely void of information. It's like you learned a new word, "conflate", and are trying to use that in all your posts to sound intelligent.
The smart gun tech has less to do with being disarmed and having the weapon turned against you (although it might be more useful for police), but making the weapon a brick when your kids are playing with it. It also makes the weapon less attractive to thieves.
A primary concern is securing it against your kids and your kids' friends. It's tough. This adds another hurdle for them to screw up and hurt themselves.
"Jim Williams, head of the FAA's drone office, said the incident highlights the risk of ubiquitous, unregulated drone use."
Flying that close to an airport is already against FAA rules. Regulations, which already exist on that, won't change the fact that it might occasionally happen that (as another poster said) some fucktard will fly in restricted airspace.
As it stands now, we have overregulated drone rules.
Dude, the first step to good security is to assume you've been compromised and then construct your defenses based on that assumption.
Not so much. The first step is figuring out what you're protecting. The next step is figuring out what the fallout is if you're compromised. The 3rd step is figuring out the likelihood of being compromised, and potential avenues of attack. Only at that point do you construct your defenses.
Contingency plans are based on assuming the worst has happened. Security plans are not. And a good security plan prevents having to implement a contingency plan, with a high degree of success.
TFA was stating that one should force password changes based on average time to crack. I'm saying this is an artificial burden on the users if they don't figure in probability of getting cracked (or rather, the time to figure out someone stole the file), and force changes 2 stddev earlier, not just the "average" time to crack minus the window of how often one logs in.
To demonstrate TFA was just spouting and not doing themselves or users any favors, if they knew they had been compromised yesterday and lost the hashed file, do you think they'd say "Ok, you guys with the shorter passwords need to change them a day sooner"? No, they'd force a global password change, even on those people with passwords that'd average a year to crack. So this is inconsistent with what the article is even saying, and is basically passing the annoyance on to the users based on fuzzy math.
I think TFA's oversight is intentional, however, although not really presented as that. The idea is to punish those with short passwords, and reward those that are more secure from brute force attacks. This has less to do with security as it has to do with artificially coaxing better passwords.
The three-day limit is based on calculations showing it would take about 4.5 days to find the password using offline cracking techniques.
If you're assuming your hashed password file is public or you allow unlimited login attempts without shuttering the connections, then this makes some sense. But if your pw file is public you need to force a change far before the average crack time (like 2 stddev), which probably means hours on an average of 3 days to crack.
But if your pw file isn't supposed to be public, then you're setting a policy assuming your system has been cracked and are passing bad math onto the users as annoyance. And then blaming them. If you fail to factor in the likelihood of the password file being taken, then all the "average time to crack" might not matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been posting about this, and the spin some politicians are pushing is reprehensible. Recently, Arizona allowed fees to charge rooftop-based solar energy producers for the privilege of selling or donating electrons to others for use. A few incredible or insane politicians are trying to spin it as if solar adopters are leeches despite the fact that they already pay for interconnect fees and all the excess energy they use.
The alternative, of course, is to go completely off the grid using your own batteries, which will end up costing the power companies (and the politicians in their pockets) even more.
But it's not all without a shred of truth. There are definitely some costs associated with high adoption rates of solar, and the breakdown is pretty easy to explain:
This works great for the power companies when a few people on one substation have some solar power generators, because they feed it back into the grid for use by those without solar. As a result, the power company can charge the full amount for the electrons used (often at higher prices), but they don't have to transfer it long distances which inevitably carries loss due to capacitance and resistance. And they get all of this without investing in the cost of increased production at the power plants.
This also works great for the solar generators, because they reduce their use during the most expensive times, and usually push themselves into a lower usage tier due to overall reduced usage. A household that uses 500kWh might only draw 100kWh net from the grid over a month, and the first 100 are usually very cheap. Some places pay for excess electrons put onto the grid, others do not.
But here's the limitation: if all your neighbors have solar, it will exceed consumption during times of bright sunlight. In other words, the substation will send out no energy (nobody needs it), and in fact cannot backfeed it to other substations. This can cause a real issue when there's a surplus. Line voltage may even go up from 110 to around 130. This is when they need energy storage. Batteries are one method, but flywheels can work well, too. They could spin up a flywheel to consume the excess energy, then release it later as-needed (e.g. a dark cloud). In fact, they can spin up a flywheel at nighttime, too, when they have excess production, to smooth out daytime use. It's not just for independent generating stations, but this infrastructure will smooth out their plants for normal use, too.
Some unscrupulous legislators are trying to saddle solar generators with the cost of those who choose not to use solar. They claim exactly the opposite, that the solar producers are driving up costs. Really, they're making a needed upgrade more obvious and in any case, there is literally no way they are "driving up costs" by reducing their own usage. That fails the basic 5th grader test.
Localizing the storage is far more efficient than sending it hundreds of miles, plus it future proofs the obvious issues of people inevitably moving away from coal and natural gas generators. These local storage solutions or backfeeding substations should be pushed by all, even those without solar generation.
Plague is easily treated today. It's just a bacterium, and it doesn't even spread from person to person without blood exchange. That's like one of the dumbest things I've heard, only interesting because plague once killed many people.
I'd be far more worried about smallpox, an easily created virus that has few people immunized these days.
That is almost certainly illegal. If nothing else, it'd be tortuous interference, clearly designed to harm. Using burner phones is contributory evidence to fraud by showing mal intent.
It makes a mockery of the idea of journalistic integrity. The beheading video is billed as an ISIS propaganda piece, so does anyone actually think that adding more propaganda would legitimize it? Methinks not.
There is simply no good from adding corporate enforced! bias, for funding or whatever. The objectionable parts are not the news, nor a beheading. The objectionable part is the context, which includes things like trolls or even auto-starting videos on facebook. I've dropped people for less, for sharing auto-starting gore videos.
Consumers should have a choice to watch or not, Editors should use discretion, Newscasters should add context and background for proper interpretation.
But for all that is holy and truthful, forcing propaganda into news just to be broadcast is the worst idea I've ever heard.
Agreed. It should have a PSA preceding it talking about the annoyances of tangentially related tech news on a tech news website.
A counterexample would be skill levels (3,1,3,3,7) with a median of 3 and mean above 3. In neither of those definitions are half below average, being 1 or 2, and 4.
Simple math would say at least half would be less than or equal to the median.
Of course, simple math rarely works here to quantify except at the extremes. People have different abilities in different areas, and gray matter is plastic. It changes, and even that rate of change matters.
What's relevant for learning to program might not correspond to what's currently being used.
Teach a man code a a language, and he's relevant to a small market. Teach a man to program, and he owns them all.
The point was to provide a sandbox, among other things. That freed up a lot of issues with security (although we know how that story ended) and issues with operating systems.
COBOL was never cool, either, but is still in use in enterprises.
For learning the craft, they should use what's best to teach it, not necessarily what's relevant at the time (unless it's a job school).
You only need to learn one oo procedure based language. All others are just a book exercise.
One assembly language and how compilers translate stuff.
And then you should also learn scheme.
That will handle basically everything, reducing it to a book learning experiment.
Maybe so it can work on those paralyzed from a spinal injury?
I wondered the same thing.
It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with creation and distribution of the new copies.
The copyright holder cannot tell you what you can do with the copies once legally obtained. There is no control of downstream use, barring copying.
It is a monopoly in every sense of the word, and furthermore, that's the correct word to use.
I concur. Everyone is upset about the imagery from the boston marathon, and it was downright scary. Now imagine if those two people had AR-15s and a backpack full of ammo instead, especially if they started at opposite ends of a block and worked their way in.
The imagery wouldn't be as scary as limbs blown off, but far, far more people would've died.
Here's a news article on a blog by someone who worked there, which pretty much verifies what you're saying.
Apple's iphone doesn't have a removable battery because (they say) it would take extra packaging, and that would reduce the size of the actual battery. Having taken one of those things apart, I don't think they're being sneaky... it looks true and makes for a far more solid, self-contained product without worries of battery doors falling off.
Does your first paragraph apply to your second paragraph?
Non-removable batteries in phones is not necessarily sneaky or tricky, especially if they provide a painless battery replacement service. ifixit does a breakdown, and says the battery is extremely difficult to replace by the end user, which could imply planned obsolescence. But phones generally go obsolete after 2-5 years anyway as the tech increases, especially with smartphones, and the battery will last that long (although it doesn't have terrific battery life as it is).
If you have actual data to add, e.g. their justification (right or wrong), then post it. Otherwise, add some value with your whiny emotional objection, or else piss off. Coward.
I ran into this issue when my iPhone was downloading email and roaming.
ATT billed me $500 and I wouldn't pay it. They tried to blame Apple and I informed them that the iPhone was their issue, too, as they were the only carrier for it. As it turns out, customer service is really collections, and we had a fine yelling match. Finally the lady agreed to send it up the line, and I had her read me exactly what she was going to send, since she did not have my interests at heart.
They did reverse the charges, and apple added the disable roaming option.
That's a good link, and shows that their grammar wasn't perfect. It is, however, a "style" book and discusses how to read n write good like and common misused words; it isn't strictly a grammar book.
One of the biggest complaints I normally see is that S&W is too pedantic, and the claim that English is a living language and changes, and that White screwed up the language when it was published and adopted by so many universities. But, that very claim that it's living and morphable is the same thing they're annoyed with (or rather, "with which they are annoyed"). S&W codified things, to make the language a little more understandable and less willy-nilly for proper writing. They changed it (by deprecating many poor or ambiguous uses) and to most detractors, this is the problem... changing a living language.
I don't see it as a problem.
I'm gazing across my bookshelf full of O Reilly books, Knuth's series, TCP/IP Illustrated, and others... but the most important books are more mundane:
Godel Escher Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, and Alice in Wonderland
Both of these books encompass the thinking and mindset which will make you a better programmer by planting the seed of logic, states, and recursion, and nourishing the hell out of it. It will massage the pathways to make someone actually want to be a programmer.
I'm extrapolating existing RC rules and overregulation of commercial UAS (i.e., the complete denying of any certificate for commercial use, whether LOS or not).
I've read the FAA rules, several times, over the past 5 years (and the hobbyist rule once for when I was flying RC planes decades ago), specifically how they apply to commercial use. I've spoken with multiple hobbyists and cam operators for movies. I am close friends with the founder of the first affordable heli autopilot.
That is to say, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say drone rules are overregulated because it even includes aircraft that maintain line of sight and follow all hobbyist rules.
I posted in march, in Feb 2012 where I link to the rules, and in Aug 2011 talking about commercial flight certificates.
You however, are spouting. Every single one of your posts on the first page of your history is a whiny crybaby post completely void of information. It's like you learned a new word, "conflate", and are trying to use that in all your posts to sound intelligent.
The smart gun tech has less to do with being disarmed and having the weapon turned against you (although it might be more useful for police), but making the weapon a brick when your kids are playing with it. It also makes the weapon less attractive to thieves.
A primary concern is securing it against your kids and your kids' friends. It's tough. This adds another hurdle for them to screw up and hurt themselves.
Flying that close to an airport is already against FAA rules. Regulations, which already exist on that, won't change the fact that it might occasionally happen that (as another poster said) some fucktard will fly in restricted airspace.
As it stands now, we have overregulated drone rules.
How about this way?
Not so much. The first step is figuring out what you're protecting.
The next step is figuring out what the fallout is if you're compromised.
The 3rd step is figuring out the likelihood of being compromised, and potential avenues of attack.
Only at that point do you construct your defenses.
Contingency plans are based on assuming the worst has happened. Security plans are not. And a good security plan prevents having to implement a contingency plan, with a high degree of success.
TFA was stating that one should force password changes based on average time to crack. I'm saying this is an artificial burden on the users if they don't figure in probability of getting cracked (or rather, the time to figure out someone stole the file), and force changes 2 stddev earlier, not just the "average" time to crack minus the window of how often one logs in.
To demonstrate TFA was just spouting and not doing themselves or users any favors, if they knew they had been compromised yesterday and lost the hashed file, do you think they'd say "Ok, you guys with the shorter passwords need to change them a day sooner"? No, they'd force a global password change, even on those people with passwords that'd average a year to crack. So this is inconsistent with what the article is even saying, and is basically passing the annoyance on to the users based on fuzzy math.
I think TFA's oversight is intentional, however, although not really presented as that. The idea is to punish those with short passwords, and reward those that are more secure from brute force attacks. This has less to do with security as it has to do with artificially coaxing better passwords.
If you're assuming your hashed password file is public or you allow unlimited login attempts without shuttering the connections, then this makes some sense. But if your pw file is public you need to force a change far before the average crack time (like 2 stddev), which probably means hours on an average of 3 days to crack.
But if your pw file isn't supposed to be public, then you're setting a policy assuming your system has been cracked and are passing bad math onto the users as annoyance. And then blaming them. If you fail to factor in the likelihood of the password file being taken, then all the "average time to crack" might not matter.