No, pinning only makes MITM attacks harder. It does nothing for my actual issue which you have ZERO solution for...

Do you even know what my primary complaint was about this encryption scheme? I've been pretty clear, but your comment about pinning makes it clear to me that you haven't been paying attention.

So here is a simple pass/fail test:

What is my primary problem with the current encryption scheme and why does pinning do literally nothing to address it?

You either answer that question correctly or you're either too stupid to have this conversation or just talking to yourself because you're not reading anything I am writing.

These discussions must be interactive or they just turn into stupid insult fights because one side or the other can't be bothered to fucking read what the other party is saying.

Except for it is because women were never excluded from technical education in the last 20 years or so.

And even RIGHT NOW they are not taking these courses.

So are universities sexist? The same universities that passed "yes means yes"?

The unis are if anything biased towards women which can be shown through a large number of statistics. If women wanted to do computer science, they would.

They don't.

Here you have the option of turning tail and scurrying away or backing up that "ignorance" charge. I assure you, if you stay put long enough, I will nail a dunce cap to your pointy little head. ;-)

Your move, chester.

Either force women to join the tech industry by law or there will always be a gender gap... oh unless you lobotomize men so they can't even do it if they want to do it.

Short of that... gender gap is forever. Women don't want to do it - so they don't.

It is the same problem really. Batshit crazy government making things impossible.

No that was not my solution.

My solution was to replace the existing system with a theoretically sound system.

Do I intend as part of that disbanding the current shit system? Yes. That is however not me saying we should just got totally naked in the meantime.

Please assume I am not stupid because I am not stupid. It wastes time, makes you sound like you're trying to straw man me, and it is generally counter productive.

As there being limited space, the pole lease fees if they exceed what the poles can pay for can pay for a conduit system to replace it.

As to long term based leasing, that is just an admission of the government being lazy and not especially interested in managing the system. Which is an argument for my suggestion of farming it out to a private contractor.

As to private contractors half assing it, that is entirely based on whether the contract is handed to a friend of one of the politicians or whether it is opened up to competition. You don't have to farm the entire network out to one company either. You can break it up on a block by block basis and let smaller companies do it. That way if one of them does a bad job you can just fire them. It is this insistence on too big to fail design that is getting us in so much trouble.

Too big to fail is not only an accident waiting to happen, it is also slow, anti democratic, and anti innovation. It is a dumb way to do things. Lets stop doing it.

As to city workers being irrelevant, I disagree. Anyone that has had to deal with road workers know that they are very relevant.

That is another service that should be farmed out to private contractors. Take a pot hole. What if rather then the government fixing it, they instead put a work order out to fix it. Licensed contractors could go out there, put up some traffic cones during proscribed hours, and then just do it.

Give them a bonus for doing it at night and 100 percent of it will be done at night. You'd never see another pot hole sit there for weeks on end again.

I drive around LA a lot at night and that means driving up to intersections where I am the only one there.

How common do you think it was that I'd wait for about 3 or more minutes for the light to change when I was the only person there?

Try almost always.

I've noticed no difference between what LA is doing and what any small town does. The intersections seem entirely based on timings.

Just the personal experience of a driver. If you were doing something... I didn't see it. And that's not good.

That doesn't control for water. Have you ever had house plants? If the temps go up, you tend to need to water your plants more because they dry out faster.

Point being, you're assuming the plants are getting the water they need under all conditions. Some farmers are going to adapt and water their plants more when it gets hotter. Other farmers either will not or cannot water their plants more and as a result they'll dry out and will reduce the yields.

What you're claiming is that generally clemant weather for crops kills crops. What temperatures specifically are you citing are killing or reducing yields in which crops?

I assure you, if I take that temperature and query agricultural experts, they're going to say that temperature is either good or better then what they were getting before for that plant.

The problem is keeping the soil moist. And it is only a problem because farmers in given regions are used to certain weather patterns. If you give them unusual weather some of them are going to ignore the change and just do everything the same. And that is going to damage the crops under some circomstances. Which is all your stats are likely showing.

If you want to make a compelling argument about this, you'd have to go to the agricultural department of any agricultural university and either ask for their data on the issue or have them do experiments that controlled for the variables.

If you seriously think your statistics can be used in this way then you do NOT know how to read statistics. This is actually one of the bigger problems in the modern world. We have a lot of data and people think that "bad" data if you have enough of it is as good as "good" data. It isn't the case.

Garbage in = Garbage out. You can't improve the data with quantity. You're making the same mistake that magazines and newspapers make when they say things like "red wine increases longevity". That is confusing causation with correlation.

What you did was look for some statistic that showed correlation for variables you were talking about and agreed with you.

Congrats. That is however meaningless. You need causation. You do not have that because the variable of water IN THE SOIL is not controlled.

What are these horrible high temperatures you're talking about? 95 degrees? 110? Corn is quite happy in high temperatures so long as it gets water. Rice is utterly indifferent to high temperatures so long as the paddies have water. Potatoes don't care though they're so happy with lower temps that they're often grown in colder climates. Same thing with wheat. You can grow it in hot areas but why? It is happy in colder areas where lots of other crops are not so you might as well grow it there instead.

When it comes to crops that need heat... which is the only thing you're going to grow in a hot area... no minor uptick in heat is going to matter to them so long as they get water.

it isn't automated... and it is not widely distributed. I live in LA. There aren't cameras on intersections.

elaborate?

The causative factor requires a functioning model. There are too many variables to claim causation without a model.

My biochemistry is a completely different subject which gases build up heat when hit with the sun.

Again, it has been shown that even on Venus where the CO2 dramatically higher... the issue is not the CO2 at all but rather the density of the atmosphere itself. You could put that much oxygen on Venus and it be about the same temperature it is now.

The entire concept of greenhouse gases as relevant to global atmospheres is likely vastly over stated.

Venus is the extreme case. All the failed though still supported climate models for the earth were adapted from models of Venus. And they're wrong because they assume the chemistry of the atmosphere matters.

Do this... find the air pressure of Venus at the "surface". Note that temperature. Now compare that to Jupiter at the same air pressure. You'll go about a third into Jupiter's atmosphere I think. The temperature is somewhat similar. Its not exact but it is in the ball park.

Do the same thing with the earth only in reverse. Get the air pressure of earth... 1 atmosphere obviously. And then go to Venus and see what the temperature of that atmosphere is at 1 atmosphere. You'll find it to be within the range of earth's atmosphere.

Which means pressure is far more relevant then gas composition. After all, Jupiter, Venus, and Earth have completely different atmospheric chemistries.

That I've done these calculations and you have not should give you pause. I have actually looked at this issue. I know about the Japanese earth simulator and you didn't know. Consider just for the sake of argument that I could be in command of more facts.

As to nitrogen and oxygen not having a big impact on the global atmosphere, that is impossible. If I removed those gases from the atmosphere, the atmosphere would be a great deal thinner. And it would therefore be a great deal colder. Forget what impact this would have on life. If we just concern ourselves with the temperature consequences, removing that nitrogen and oxygen from the atmosphere would radically reduce the temperature of earth. We'd be looking at a Martian climate.

As to heat reducing crop yields, you're not controlling for water in those statistics so it could all be water.

Look, I have a green house. I have thousands of plants.

  Do you know which plants don't like being 95 degrees? Basically none of them. What kills them all is getting too much water and some of them have problems if it goes over 100. But up to 95 degrees they're all really happy. What is more that is very species specific. Certain species like it colder and some like it even hotter. You can take some species up to 120 and they're perfectly happy with it. I don't go that hot because I don't grow that many species like that and I find the temperature personally unpleasant so I don't let the green house get that hot.

Point is, if you want to have a scientific discussion then you're going to have to use good data. Using statistics from the USDA are not relevant to this discussion because they're not properly controlled for any one variable. They're really just yield statistics. It is like trying to use US Census statistics to judge the psychology of the nation. You can't do that. The data isn't taken in such a matter that it is clean enough to do that. Mostly what the census and yield stats give you is how many people we have and how much corn we have respectively. They can't really tell you what a long term climate change would have on global agriculture.

For one thing, they grow wheat in Canada. Think about that. They do that NOW. Now global warming will have the biggest impact on polar and sub polar climate zones and the least impact on the equatorial climate zones. The temperature rise under global warming is a global NORMALIZATION of climate. That means, that as the planet goes through AGW northern climates will become less harsh. That is the primary effect off this theory. Which means places like Canada and Russia could well turn into bread baskets. The population of these places could sky rocket either through population migration or simple breeding. And the ability of these zones to produce food will skyrocket at well.

I'm not sure you're aware of how your own theories work. They don't make everywhere 2 degrees warmer. They make some places 10 or 20 degrees warmer and some areas 5 or 10 degrees warmer. And over all you get a 2 degree warming if you average it out. But at the equator for example there shouldn't be any warming.

As to water, there is enormous amounts of water in the north west, north into canada, and of course huge amounts in the east.

As I said, this is an undertaking that could cost over 1 trillion dollars but that is less then our last war and really it could cause the middle of the country to bloom. So why not.

As to the drought conditions California is experiencing, that was what this whole thread was supposed to be about. And the scientists concluded it was a normal predicted climate pattern.

Last time this happened in the 1970s, California made plans to expand their water infrastructure mostly in storage so they could better weather a 2 to 4 year drought. They didn't build any of it and here we are with the same problem all over again. Had they built it, they wouldn't be in any trouble. Everyone with a clue knows this.

The Australians in Sydney have the same situation. They had a big bad drought decades back, planners said "dam these rivers, build up this many acre feet of water, etc"... and they didn't do it because they thought the river was pretty. Well... then they're in a serious drought condition later. Surprise surprise.

As a counter solution, are you aware of the Tasmanian aqueduct plan? Tasmania has an abundance of fresh clean water. It has literal rivers that flow into the sea all the time because they will never be able to use it all. The concept is to run a pipe from a large lake in Tasmania, under the sea like a garden hose, and then have it spit that water out on the mainland of Australia. The expense would be about a billion which is less then what Sydney is spending on a desalinization plant. The output would also be a great deal higher.

Aqueducts. We have lots of water. It is just in the wrong places. The Romans once wanted to build a city on a hill top. The problem was that there was no water up there. So they looked around and found another hill top some 40 miles away that had lots of water just bubbling out of the ground. The Romans built a pipe from that hill top to the next. The water flowed down the pipe, built up pressure, went up the next hill and into their city with no added power. Just gravity to move water from one hill, across a valley, and into their new town.

That was at least 1800 years ago. We move water hundreds of miles. But there is no reason why we can't move water thousands of miles. All we have to do is keep the input higher then the output... and the water will flow.

As to CO2 and ice ages, what you really did was disqualify the subject entirely. And that's fine. If I can't cite it then you're not going to do it either. You can either accept that the CO2 was higher during some the old ice ages or I don't want to hear about CO2 and ice ages from you.

You're conflating house wiring with street wiring.

Lets take a city like New York City or if you prefer London. Are you telling me that the wires are run naked in the concrete? That seems unlikely. More likely is that the wires are in some sort of pipe. I can't speak to the width of the pipe but I am quite sure the ISP has the ability to change the wire without changing the pipe or even digging up the street.

Why would you do it in such a way that you'd have to do that? You're not going to save any money. It is just a dumb way to do things. While I acknowledge that it might be done that way in some places, I rather doubt it is standard given that there is no reason to do it that way.

Now your counter argument might be that the pipe is not wide enough to accept additional wires. That might be true. Though all you're saying there is that the existing conduit system is too narrow... not that one does not exist.

Regardless, lets just for the sake of argument say that everything you presume is accurate. That still leaves the poles. If the suburbs start getting fiber and the urban areas are denied it because of this stupidity then it won't be long before they are digging up the streets. Nothing pisses the cities off faster then getting poorer services then what is found in the suburbs. Even though that is frequently the case.

Better schools, better water, better police... I suppose an inferior ballet... but you can't have everything.

Cuba has an opportunity to leap into the 21st century.

The only obstacle is their batshit crazy government. No one wants to invest anything in Cuba because it will just get stolen by the government. And the government is too poor to actually buy anything.

So there you go.

The lights become inefficient if you do that. You have to appreciate what they're replacing. Traffic guards. Literally a man would stand in the middle of the road and direct traffic.

You could either have a stop sign or a traffic guard. That was how it used to work.

When they introduced traffic lights, they were basically blind traffic guards. They are inherently less efficient then actual traffic guards though of course much less expensive.

At this point, I'd suggest we go to round-a-bouts or possibly traffic lights that are aware of local traffic conditions in real time and respond to them by changing light durations.

THAT would be a real safety innovation. The city councils won't touch it because it doesn't make money and that is all they care about these days.

But consider cameras used not to give tickets but to adjust light timings in real time.

So for example, late at night where there is only one person at the intersection... they get a green light instantly.

During periods of the day where there is light traffic the system could slip into an egalitarian mode where it lets everyone have their turn much like a stop light.

Then during periods of high traffic it could prioritize given lanes to prevent traffic jams and make the intersections more efficient.

In regards to yellow lights... Again, model the AI on the traffic guard. What is he going to do? He's not going to tell a lane it can go until the lane is clear from the last transit. That means, the light will NOT go green until people are done going through even if he told them it wasn't their turn anymore.

Think about it. An aware intersection. Not a blind traffic guard that just works on clock work timing. But rather, an active system that knows what is going on.

We could build one right now and it probably wouldn't be expensive... oh after the graft and corruption gets at it who knows what it would cost. But the actual cost of the mechanism shouldn't be a big deal.

As to my stupid backward country... that would be the United States. And the sophistication of my country is unrivaled. We are a hegemonic power for a reason, monkey boy.

As to your suggestion that one should never complain about politicians being stupid or corrupt... that is such an idiotic statement that I don't know where to go from here. Do you not know how democracy works, twit? Complaining is part of the political process. I thought everyone knew that. I've talked to people living in dictatorships that knew more about democracy then you.

As to your dubious credentials, I think we've established rather soundly that you're a clown. Not a lot more needs to be said on the subject.

Shuffle off and stop pretending to be an expert, shit for brains.