Law enforcement officials are investigating a former employee of a company that negotiates with hackers and facilitates cryptocurrency payments during ransomware attacks, according to a statement from the firm, DigitalMint. DigitalMint President Marc Jason Grens this week told organizations it works with that the US Justice Department is examining allegations that the then-employee struck deals with hackers to profit from extortion payments, according to a person familiar with the matter.
This sentence reads as if the company negotiates with hackers and facilitates cryptocurrency payments and that they fired an employee for doing their job because they started to get investigated for doing what the company purpose says they do. WTF, Slashdot? Do better.
Eventually things will get bad enough that we have widespread wars and we start to see drafts again.
And the wars will cause a population drop and a subsequent slowing of GHG emissions. Republicans have a funny way of saving the planet!
Slashdot hates Elon Musk, for some good reasons and some bad reasons, but the pearl clutching over a couple of failures is pretty silly.
The article was not written by people on slashdot. It wasn't even about Elon Musk.
I don't know what this means.
From the article:
It took two decades of false starts, crashes and incomplete landings -- from Space IL's Beresheet to iSpace's Hakuto-R and Astrobotic's Peregrine -- before even one private firm delivered on the promise of lunar access. The prevailing industry answer -- "we need to innovate for lower cost" -- rings hollow. What's happening now isn't innovation; it's aspiration masquerading as disruption...
If I'm not mistaken it's the US's *only* way to get them there, no?
I think you could make the case we are losing ground to countries with other approaches.
Adams's law of slow-moving disasters: we can avoid or mitigate these because we have time, resources, and only need to exercise the will to do so.
Second, as a planet, we need to decide if saving lives is important enough to justify the effort and expense, or not. Not just the US. Thus, the will is lacking.
On the contrary, the decision has already been made. Planet-wide, we, as a species, have decided that continued corporate profits must be protected at all costs, and that there are no consequences severe enough to justify impacting those profits even in a marginal manner. Human lives don't rank in the face of corporate profits. Hells, even the possibility of making the entire planet uninhabitable doesn't really register to those with the power to make a big enough difference to matter, because profits are the be-all, end-all of existence to those that could begin to enforce the changes necessary to stop, or even slow, the environmental damage we're causing.
Once we wipe out enough of the species that it begins to show up on quarterly reports as loss of profit, maybe we'll consider doing something about it. Until then? Full speed ahead.
Plus, a music CD will hold maybe 7 or 8 songs, but most CD players can play mp3s, and a 600 MB CD will hold a hundred or more of those.
And stop greenfield development. No more building things on virgin land, from now on you have to infill on vacant lots or tear down an existing building to build a new one.
That's a pretty childish assumption.
No, its an adult observation of human behavior.
in producing false evidence
To sum it up:
Everyone convicted of crimes that you like was convicted on false evidence.
Everyone not convicted that you dislike was guilty and no evidence is necessary.
Got it.
I would say an agreement makes a cut more likely to occur and that this is worth the pretty small amount of emissions associated with an international meeting.
In terms of doing things remotely, that would be great, but as I previously noted, we are a social species and trust tends to be better established with face-to-face meetings.
So the question is how many more emissions were actually cut because they met in person. Compared to the emissions that weren't cut because of the example they set. Frankly, the argument this was necessary is pure rationalization. This is all part of the notion that we can limit climate change while continuing to do business as usual.
You don't want to move to the PRC and avail yourself of their great automobile industry?
Well, your personal choice.
The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.