No bet at all. It's no-risk, all-reward, results are practically guaranteed.
You guys always talk a good line. Try not to get the planet fried with your obsessions.
In addition to everything else, mozilla.org has some of the absolute stupidest public relations strategy imaginable... could it be the they're being run by plants intended to destroy the place?
It may be an illusion that we control our PCs anymore.
It was always an illusion, but it was one that we used to work very hard to support. Now the pretense is long gone-- the central message is always, and forever "we own you, don't you forget it".
(Me, I use linux software so I can have it my way... then some pinhead at redhat fucks with libgtk, I upgrade my debian distro and my user interface is messed up in some random way that's supposed to be better for a "smart" phone, which I'm not actually using, and have no plans on using.)
see, to most people, browsers already are basically adware-delivery vehicles.
Look, most people have already given up on Firefox, at this point the firefox user base is the few, the proud, the masochistic.
Have you ever asked a firefox shill why you should use firefox when it's just become a fork of chrome? They invariably start going on about getting away from google's evil surveillance ad-supported clutches.
Either we're supposed to care about this, or not. Is mozilla.org a lesser evil, or just a different evil?
I think the post-57 "Quantum" firefox does a little better than that. It doesn't freeze up completely, it tends to completely crash-- weirdly enough, this is actually much preferable behavior, it saves me the trouble of trying to run "xkill" when firefox is eating most of the system resources.
It's a good thing I like to complain or I would've given up on Firefox a long time ago.
The United States did some work on the idea of nuclear powered military aircraft way back when-- it was always a pretty whacked idea. Like, part of the design involved shielding just the pilot compartment and spewing radiation to the rear and the sides (thus discouraging pursuit aircraft! Win-win!). They got as far as building a gigagntic "hot-cell" to park the thing in so it could be worked on without killing yourself.
As Freeman Dyson once put it, ideas like this might be most charitably be regarded as welfare programs for engineers and scientists.
Are they telling themselves that if they're drones they won't need any shielding at all? And that they'll use remote manipulators to do cargo-handling and maintenance work?
I don't have anything against research in molten-salt reactors though, and I guess if you need to say "drones" to sell a project, we might politely look the other way. (Why not motlen-salt mobile smart phones?)
Storage absolutely is viable, or at least on the cusp of being so.
Betting the planet on a speculative technology that isn't quite there yet would not seem to be tremendously sensible.
In contrast we could build nuclear plants (using half-century old designs, even) that would work, and by any reasonable standard would deserve to be called "clean".
But let's go back to our regular scheduled anti-nuclear fear-mongering. It's not like frying the planet is anything to worry about.
When you entrust your information to google, google gets to know about it. (Yeah, I know, encryption. Like anyone encrypts their gmail.) Google is not shy about using your information. Strictly for advertising purposes, you understand. At present. We hope.
Further, anyone who has placed a plant inside of google-- or subverted someone already there-- has the potential to know about it.
When was the last time someone compromised GMail?
You mean besides google?
We don't know.
But what the fuck, let's entrust the democratic process for the entire United States to google. What could go wrong?
2. Use the cloud: A big, commercial cloud service will be much more secure than anything you can set up. Use a cloud-based office suite like GSuite or Microsoft365 that will provide all your basic office functions and a safe place to store information.
That's completely ridiculous, short-sighted crap. We're all supposed to trust our entire voting system to a tiny handful of companies? "We're completely invulnerable to any sort of subversion, because Technology. Trust us!"
Only ONE party disapproves of measures to make our elections secure. Voter ID is NOT a function of America's "racist past"
Every attempt at finding examples of the fraud that voter ID is supposed to prevent have come up empty. Question: why would someone push a fix for a non-existent problem? Answer: they've got a different agenda.
The existing system in much of the US is you show up at the polls, tell 'em who you are, and sign off on the register. If you think about it for a minute, you can see how difficult it is to game this system wholesale-- if anyone signs off as someone else they've got to worry that someone else will show up later. And you can't get away with doing this multiple times in one place or the poll watchers will recognize your face. The old Chicago-style of busing people around from place to place is expensive and obvious and pretty much not happening.
(My, that was a waste-of-breath, wasn't it?)
Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"