In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Externalities much? I wonder if conservatives realize neoclassical economics concluded a long time ago that something like a 'carbon tax' is necessary to their models?
Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective. These economists recommended government intervention to correct for the effects of externalities. In The Economics of Welfare, British economist Arthur Pigou suggested that governments tax polluters an amount equivalent to the cost of the harm to others. Such a tax would yield the market outcome that would have prevailed with adequate internalization of all costs by polluters. By the same logic, governments should subsidize those who generate positive externalities, in the amount that others benefit.
It would be nice to have a basic carbon tax in lieu of the current regulatory / subsidy regime.
Conservatives tend to not like the carbon tax part and liberals tend to not like the getting rid of the regulatory / subsidy parts. It's a tough sell politically.
Doesn't that end up as essentially "Do what you want, just pay for it"? Meaning in the end, companies will manage to spend insanely small amounts for polluting rivers and stuff? I'd much rather tell companies they need to find a way to not be horribly toxic. They always find a way.
that depends on the size of the tax and how it's implemented; sometimes they are not implemented well. Theoeretically, the tax should be at a high enough level that the tax provides enough money to undo the damage caused by the pollution (e.g. to fully clean the river they polluted). The goal in general is not to eliminate pollution, but to get companies to implement the most cost-effective pollution reducing measures, as well as provide funds to cleanup things.
Externalities much? I wonder if conservatives realize neoclassical economics concluded a long time ago that something like a 'carbon tax' is necessary to their models?
Neoclassical economists long ago recognized that the inefficiencies associated with technical externalities constitute a form of “market failure.” Private market–based decision making fails to yield efficient outcomes from a general welfare perspective. These economists recommended government intervention to correct for the effects of externalities. In The Economics of Welfare, British economist Arthur Pigou suggested that governments tax polluters an amount equivalent to the cost of the harm to others. Such a tax would yield the market outcome that would have prevailed with adequate internalization of all costs by polluters. By the same logic, governments should subsidize those who generate positive externalities, in the amount that others benefit.
It would be nice to have a basic carbon tax in lieu of the current regulatory / subsidy regime.
Conservatives tend to not like the carbon tax part and liberals tend to not like the getting rid of the regulatory / subsidy parts. It's a tough sell politically.
Doesn't that end up as essentially "Do what you want, just pay for it"? Meaning in the end, companies will manage to spend insanely small amounts for polluting rivers and stuff? I'd much rather tell companies they need to find a way to not be horribly toxic. They always find a way.
that depends on the size of the tax and how it's implemented; sometimes they are not implemented well. Theoeretically, the tax should be at a high enough level that the tax provides enough money to undo the damage caused by the pollution (e.g. to fully clean the river they polluted). The goal in general is not to eliminate pollution, but to get companies to implement the most cost-effective pollution reducing measures, as well as provide funds to cleanup things.
Economizing the environment is pretty damn tough. I don't think there would be a way to come to a sensible compromise with young earthers either?
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
So we had dictators, mass murderers and war criminals in the UN, but if someone might have been involved in a hostage crisis 35 years(!) ago, then he may not enter the United States no matter what. Why? Because the hostages were American.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
Armed anti-government activists have forced federal authorities to stop their seizure of cattle that were illegally grazing on federal land in Nevada.
"Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public," Bureau of Land Management Director Neil Kornze said, according to ABC News.
Self-described militias had come to protest the government action against Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher who is feuding with BLM over his use of federal land.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
you're a freelance(?) virus programmer that claims engineering viruses is another thing entirely than identifying security vulnerabilities? ridiculous.
please provide some source on your claim about 'most critical information leaking' if you can, i'd be much obliged. sounds like interesting reading.
After 20 years and multiple court orders to remove the trespass cattle, Mr. Bundy owes the American taxpayers in excess of $1 million.
Bundy, 67, and his large family cast their resistance to the roundup as a constitutional stand. He says he doesn't recognize federal authority over state land. The dispute that triggered the roundup dates to 1993, when the BLM cited concern for the federally protected tortoise. The agency later revoked Bundy's grazing rights.
Bundy claimed ancestral rights to graze his cattle on lands his Mormon family settled in the 19th century. He stopped paying grazing fees and disregarded several court orders to remove his animals.
BLM officials, however, say Bundy owes more than $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees.
"Our mission here is to protect the protestors (sic) and the American citizens from the violence that the federal government is dishing out,” Jim Landy, a member of the West Mountain Rangers, who made the journey from Montana to Nevada, told Fox News Channel. “People here are scared."
Ah, fox news nonsense; no wonder the story got traction. What I don't get is; how it's still going on. Normally enforcement doesn't wait THAT long to escalate; by now you'd think he'd be charged with contempt of court.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
you're a freelance(?) virus programmer that claims engineering viruses is another thing entirely than identifying security vulnerabilities? ridiculous.
please provide some source on your claim about 'most critical information leaking' if you can, i'd be much obliged. sounds like interesting reading.
I work for a company that does work in information security. I write the exploit and detection scripts for them. And my claim is that engineering viruses is completely different than digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities.
I'll try to do some research later when I'm not on a cell phone, but high valued target networks normally are really tight in terms of outside attack vectors.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) went after President Barack Obama's views on gay marriage Friday, questioning the commander-in-chief's changes in his "Christian convictions."
In an interview with Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," guest host Laura Ingraham asked Huckabee if there was a concerted effort out there to tar conservatives as anti-gay. Huckabee said that his views were no different than those of Obama's in 2008, shifting the focus to how the president has changed his stance.
"He said it was because of his Christian convictions," Huckabee said of Obama. "Does he have them or does he not? If one has them, they don't change depending on what the culture does. You don't take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view."
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) went after President Barack Obama's views on gay marriage Friday, questioning the commander-in-chief's changes in his "Christian convictions."
In an interview with Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," guest host Laura Ingraham asked Huckabee if there was a concerted effort out there to tar conservatives as anti-gay. Huckabee said that his views were no different than those of Obama's in 2008, shifting the focus to how the president has changed his stance.
"He said it was because of his Christian convictions," Huckabee said of Obama. "Does he have them or does he not? If one has them, they don't change depending on what the culture does. You don't take an opinion poll to come up with a new point of view."
Yeah Huckabee is out shilling for a staunch Pro-Life/Anti-Gay (marriage) Republican candidate. Not sure if it's to stoke his coffers or just to push the party to the social right?
It's hard to tell now that 'running for President' is becoming more of a self-enriching endeavor than a political one (on the Republican side at least)
(Reuters) - Colorado, the first state to tax legalized recreational marijuana sales, expects to bring in an estimated $98 million in revenue this year, exceeding the state's original expectations by 40 percent.
The state began levying sales and excise taxes on recreational marijuana on January 1, 2014. Moody's Investors Service, in a report released Friday, said legal sales in Colorado will reduce the size of the black market and revenue from legal sales will mean more tax payments flowing into state coffers.
The funds are slated for treatment, school construction and deterring young people from using the drug. School districts will likely get $40 million, or nearly 30 percent, of the projected $134 million in total marijuana tax revenues. New revenues will only make up 1.4 percent of the state's available general fund.
"There's been a lot of buzz around legalization," said Andrea Unsworth, a Moody's analyst. But she cautioned that tax revenues were "still a very small fraction of the state's overall budget. It's not going to sway things too much in one way or another."
Colorado imposed a 15 percent excise tax on wholesale marijuana and a 10 percent sales tax on retail sales. That's in addition to a pre-existing 2.9 percent tax on medical marijuana. Local governments will keep 15 percent of sales tax revenue, while the rest of the money will stay with the state.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
you're a freelance(?) virus programmer that claims engineering viruses is another thing entirely than identifying security vulnerabilities? ridiculous.
please provide some source on your claim about 'most critical information leaking' if you can, i'd be much obliged. sounds like interesting reading.
I work for a company that does work in information security. I write the exploit and detection scripts for them. And my claim is that engineering viruses is completely different than digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities.
I'll try to do some research later when I'm not on a cell phone, but high valued target networks normally are really tight in terms of outside attack vectors.
ok cool, but that really is a misconception, digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities is a part of engineering a virus. i think you know this very well.
another guy who probably knows this very well is the guy who wrote the bug...
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies.
"But in this case, it was a simple programming error in a new feature, which unfortunately occurred in a security relevant area," he said. "It was not intended at all, especially since I have previously fixed OpenSSL bugs myself, and was trying to contribute to the project."
Despite denying the code he put intentionally, he said it could be entirely possible that the government intelligence agencies had been making use of this critical flaw over the past two years.
"It is a possibility, and it's always better to assume the worst than best case in security matters, but since I didn't know [about] the bug until it was released and [I am] not affiliated with any agency, I can only speculate," he told The Sydney Morning Herald.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
you're a freelance(?) virus programmer that claims engineering viruses is another thing entirely than identifying security vulnerabilities? ridiculous.
please provide some source on your claim about 'most critical information leaking' if you can, i'd be much obliged. sounds like interesting reading.
I work for a company that does work in information security. I write the exploit and detection scripts for them. And my claim is that engineering viruses is completely different than digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities.
I'll try to do some research later when I'm not on a cell phone, but high valued target networks normally are really tight in terms of outside attack vectors.
ok cool, but that really is a misconception, digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities is a part of engineering a virus. i think you know this very well.
another guy who probably knows this very well is the guy who wrote the bug...
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies.
"But in this case, it was a simple programming error in a new feature, which unfortunately occurred in a security relevant area," he said. "It was not intended at all, especially since I have previously fixed OpenSSL bugs myself, and was trying to contribute to the project."
Despite denying the code he put intentionally, he said it could be entirely possible that the government intelligence agencies had been making use of this critical flaw over the past two years.
"It is a possibility, and it's always better to assume the worst than best case in security matters, but since I didn't know [about] the bug until it was released and [I am] not affiliated with any agency, I can only speculate," he told The Sydney Morning Herald.
Also, it's good to assume that anybody could have been using this exploit since it was introduced, in the same way it's good to assume that anybody could steal your wallet. That doesn't mean they (the NSA) did. Also, it specifically says that it's "obvious to assume" things about the NSA, but that they didn't insert the bug, so the assumption is wrong on that front. I merely posit that the assumption that the NSA is run by gods of information theft and know/exploit every bug soon after it is released is probably wrong as well.
On April 12 2014 08:42 aksfjh wrote: It's one thing to engineer viruses and whatnot, it's another thing entirely to dig deep into RFCs and source code to find this stuff.
no, that's a misconception. it's very much a part of 'engineering viruses'.
btw if any of those companies you mentioned, that all have been conspiring with the nsa, knew about the bug no doubt they'd give nsa a heads up way before they go public with it. you know, for risk assessment and mitigation... nudge nudge.
... I literally research and develop this stuff for a living. Most viruses are deployed via social engineering, as is most critical information leaking. Day 0 vulnerabilities are great to use, but are far too resource intensive to invest in detecting (intentionally). It's much easier and effective to search for known vulnerabilities externally and/or to convince some dumbass employee to click on a bad link or open an infected attachment.
you're a freelance(?) virus programmer that claims engineering viruses is another thing entirely than identifying security vulnerabilities? ridiculous.
please provide some source on your claim about 'most critical information leaking' if you can, i'd be much obliged. sounds like interesting reading.
I work for a company that does work in information security. I write the exploit and detection scripts for them. And my claim is that engineering viruses is completely different than digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities.
I'll try to do some research later when I'm not on a cell phone, but high valued target networks normally are really tight in terms of outside attack vectors.
ok cool, but that really is a misconception, digging through source code to find unknown vulnerabilities is a part of engineering a virus. i think you know this very well.
another guy who probably knows this very well is the guy who wrote the bug...
Dr Seggelmann said it was obvious to assume that the bug was intentionally inserted, especially after various revelations by Edward Snowden of the surveillance activities carried out by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and other countries intelligence agencies.
"But in this case, it was a simple programming error in a new feature, which unfortunately occurred in a security relevant area," he said. "It was not intended at all, especially since I have previously fixed OpenSSL bugs myself, and was trying to contribute to the project."
Despite denying the code he put intentionally, he said it could be entirely possible that the government intelligence agencies had been making use of this critical flaw over the past two years.
"It is a possibility, and it's always better to assume the worst than best case in security matters, but since I didn't know [about] the bug until it was released and [I am] not affiliated with any agency, I can only speculate," he told The Sydney Morning Herald.
Also, it's good to assume that anybody could have been using this exploit since it was introduced, in the same way it's good to assume that anybody could steal your wallet. That doesn't mean they (the NSA) did. Also, it specifically says that it's "obvious to assume" things about the NSA, but that they didn't insert the bug, so the assumption is wrong on that front. I merely posit that the assumption that the NSA is run by gods of information theft and know/exploit every bug soon after it is released is probably wrong as well.
if you had posted that i wouldn't have objected, but you hinged your argument on the earlier misconception or misconstrual if you prefer.
a better analogy would be revolving around the hamburgler (nsa) and the most delicious of cheeseburgers (security vulnerability in openssl) rather than anybody and your wallet.
BERLIN (AP) — The cost of keeping global warming in check is "relatively modest," but only if the world acts quickly to reverse the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change said Sunday.
Such gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, rose on average by 2.2 percent a year in 2000-2010, driven by the use of coal in the power sector, officials said as they launched the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's report on measures to fight global warming.
Without additional measures to contain emissions, global temperatures will rise about 3 degrees to 4 degrees Celsuis (5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 compared to current levels, the panel said.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press after the panel's weeklong session in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
The IPCC, an international body assessing climate science, projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
The IPCC said the shift would entail a near-quadrupling of low-carbon energy — which in the panel's projections included renewable sources as well as nuclear power and fossil fuel-fired plants equipped with technologies to capture some of the emissions.
BERLIN (AP) — The cost of keeping global warming in check is "relatively modest," but only if the world acts quickly to reverse the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, the head of the U.N.'s expert panel on climate change said Sunday.
Such gases, mainly CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, rose on average by 2.2 percent a year in 2000-2010, driven by the use of coal in the power sector, officials said as they launched the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's report on measures to fight global warming.
Without additional measures to contain emissions, global temperatures will rise about 3 degrees to 4 degrees Celsuis (5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 compared to current levels, the panel said.
"The longer we delay the higher would be the cost," IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri told The Associated Press after the panel's weeklong session in Berlin. "But despite that, the point I'm making is that even now, the cost is not something that's going to bring about a major disruption of economic systems. It's well within our reach."
The IPCC, an international body assessing climate science, projected that shifting the energy system from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power would reduce consumption growth by about 0.06 percentage points per year, adding that that didn't take into account the economic benefits of reduced climate change. "The loss in consumption is relatively modest," Pachauri said.
The IPCC said the shift would entail a near-quadrupling of low-carbon energy — which in the panel's projections included renewable sources as well as nuclear power and fossil fuel-fired plants equipped with technologies to capture some of the emissions.
The IPCC, a never-ending source of entertainment. One part alarmism and another advocacy. This time I guess they noticed that their adherents were suggesting some pretty laughable solutions, so now they're trying a different tack.
"So many of the technologies that will help us fight climate change are far cheaper, more readily available, and better performing than they were when the last IPCC assessment was released less than a decade ago," Kerry said.
On April 11 2014 14:48 IgnE wrote: You want to talk about economic global policy?
No, I'd rather talk about IR and stuff like that. Even current political events, which do get some press on the forum. Not only am I not familiar with econ, I don't find it particularly interesting. Just IMO
EPT
