> 70% of land was owned by wealthy nobles, and they used the profits from their land ownership to purchase all new land-producing/discovering capital and therefore become the owners of all new land coming onto the market
So, basically, like REITs? It's funny that graphics card feature sets are what generate moral outrage when a feudal regression happening in real time before our very eyes in regards to the basic necessities of life.
Considering that the status quo is currently that literally asking the individual and querying the source of truth to confirm the history of an individual directly for the purpose of discrimination are ubiquitous practices... yes, I think such laws would be very effective in reducing discrimination on the basis of criminal and judicial history.
If we have not even said that it is wrong, then it's going to happen. Saying that it is wrong and should stop happening is the first incremental step in reducing its rate of occurrence.
These laws exist. You’re not allowed to discriminate based on criminal or arrest record unless it’s relevant to the job (e.g. someone applying to be a delivery driver with 3 DUIs).
The problem is that between two equally qualified candidates, if one has a record and the other is clean, it can be pretty easy to justify just throwing the first one out. And pretty hard to prove that that’s why you were rejected.
I think you actually have that backwards. You can't ban public mugshots and have a free and open society. If arrests can be secret then there is no executive or judicial oversight.
But you can make charged and convicted statuses a protected class, and ban its consideration in any context as has been done for other protected classes. After all, if we believe that the process of justice rectifies wrongs, then the matter should be closed when the process has been completed. If we do not believe that the process of justice functionally rehabilitates and fairly rectifies, such that consideration of history beyond the closure of a matter is necessary, then what exactly is the aim of that process?
We could also educate the public about the purpose of the justice system, moral complexity in the assignment of responsibility in the light of historical/social/environmental/economic factors, psychology of criminality and rehabilitation, and the frequency of successful rehabilitation and subsequent significant contribution.
Pixels aren't the problem, the behavior of dehumanization is the problem.
The way I see it, you can either pass a law "banning the pixels" or try to change human nature. Which will be easier and which one will address the issue sooner?
Either way you're ignoring human nature. The other human nature is the nature of power to corrupt, ignored in reducing the transparency of the judicial and executive processes. I can't think of a single historical or contemporary example of government secrecy which has produced morally consistent outcomes. I do not think such things can exist without eventually corrupting the process they serve.
As I said below in another thread, banning discrimination on the basis of judicial and criminal history would immediately and obviously "change human nature" because the practice of discrimination on the basis of these histories occurs openly as a best practice under standing precedent in almost every area of society.
It's literally on application forms -- how can you NOT think that requiring "the question" to be absent from the form would change the conversation about this kind of discrimination?
You can still have this information be publicly available without it being easily accessible on the internet. That's the key. I think we need to return to a system where this information is accessible on request, but not something that's easy to find online.
The traffic goes through this "new infrastructure" not out of necessity but because it's free and allows the user to pretend like a number of problems don't exist.
Terrestrial optical networks operate far, far below capacity to create artificial scarcity, which is to a certain extent necessary to recoup the capital expenditures in a competitive market, and is to a certain extent an abuse of an under-regulated natural monopoly.
If you could eliminate all adversarial factors and put every data service subscriber's payment for a single month into a pool, and that pool purchased only transceivers, passive optics and switches, and this hardware was distributed to every network operator perfectly fairly based on its contribution to the global maximization of available network capacity, then the delivered capacity to the end user could increase by something like 4.5 orders of magnitude with no substantial change in topology or subscriber or provider costs afterwards using the existing fiber, with a few more orders of magnitude possible with a fatter tree before the backbone costs explode.
With DWDM you can carry 100+ channels of 100Gbps over a single fiber today, with commodity, off the shelf components. Most fiber in the ground today is probably still lit with a single wave of 10G, if it's not just dark.
This distribution model is not even remotely a technical necessity, it's an arbitrary local minima reached largely by exploitative market distortions and adversarial economics.
The proportion of the population that will pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation will never be 0 unless you can guarantee that it is impossible to make a ransom offer which yields a positive expected valuation to the victim.
In effect this means that refusing to pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation subsidizes outcomes for those that do pay the ransom.
or, really, what I mean to say is, there is no way to stop everyone from paying ransoms when we assume they are rational or even pseudo-rational actors, except by making it impossible for them to be presented with the choice of paying a ransom which makes sense to them to pay from their perspective
for example, if someone is going to die based on the information, then we would have to be ready to kill that person anyway to make a point, and apparently have perfect information about everything except how to stop this tragedy from happening, in any case the person being ransomed is essentially morally bound to pay the ransom, with the only difference in the vindictive justice case being the tangentially but not necessarily meaningfully involved party is guaranteed to die, and that doesn't seem like the outcome we're looking for here really
>there is no way to stop everyone from paying ransoms when we assume they are rational or even pseudo-rational actors
I guess it depends on what the definition of rational is. Is it rational to give money to charity? People do that all the time because they feel it's the morally right thing to do.
>except by making it impossible for them to be presented with the choice of paying a ransom which makes sense to them to pay from their perspective
Yep, making it illegal to pay the ransom is a good way to stop people from having that choice. If police themselves are paying a ransom, that might make it hard to make it illegal.
>The proportion of the population that will pay a ransom with a positive expected valuation will never be 0 unless...
You don't need to get the proportion to 0 to help people. Reducing the proportion is helpful. If you reduce the amount of people paying (say you convince half the population that it's immoral to pay), the ransomware gangs will be less profitable, and will invest less money in ransomware and thus less people will be attacked.
Some fraction of every ransom paid is reinvested into making better ransomware and attacking more people.
> Yep, making it illegal to pay the ransom is a good way to stop people from having that choice. If police themselves are paying a ransom, that might make it hard to make it illegal.
Ransoming itself is already illegal and yet people still have the choice to do it.
Why would making paying the ransom illegal remove the choice to do it?
> You don't need to get the proportion to 0 to help people. Reducing the proportion is helpful. If you reduce the amount of people paying (say you convince half the population that it's immoral to pay), the ransomware gangs will be less profitable, and will invest less money in ransomware and thus less people will be attacked.
It's something that's trivial to automate which produces positive cash flow, which makes it something approaching a thermodynamic impossibility to prevent from happening.
We made spamming illegal. Most of what is spammed is already illegal. So there's no spam anymore, right?
The policy suggested produces obviously absurd outcomes when applied to plausible scenarios.
It does more harm than good, and is an emotional knee jerk which does not survive rational analysis.
>Ransoming itself is already illegal and yet people still have the choice to do it.
You mean the attackers? They're not in the US, so US law doesn't matter to them.
>Why would making paying the ransom illegal remove the choice to do it?
The attackers don't care about the law. For 2 reasons: (1) they live in countries without much enforcement, (2) they use online anonymity tools. Most US businesses care about following the law to a reasonable degree so they don't get in trouble. They are in the US where there is better law enforcement and since they're legitimate businesses with known addresses and employees, they cannot be anonymous.
>It's something that's trivial to automate which produces positive cash flow, which makes it something approaching a thermodynamic impossibility to prevent from happening.
There are many aspects that need human effort. People actively communicating for spear phishing and vishing. Negotiators to negotiate the amount. Customer support to help with payments. Customer support to help with decryption. Constantly updating the malware to avoid new detections from antivirus. Constantly updating the malware to take advantage of new vulnerabilities.
>We made spamming illegal. Most of what is spammed is already illegal. So there's no spam anymore, right?
I never said making ransomware illegal would make it disappear.
Yeah, the economy is going so great we've only had 2 armed uprisings in as many years with 2 orders of magnitude growth in housing cost versus wage growth or housing cost versus population growth while over half of the usable land area of the country is zoned for non-poors
I thank God for the Republicrats printing a third of the national debt and mailing checks directly to their cronies every time I open Zillow and realize I have effectively earned negative income for a lifetime of labor
Increasingly things seem to be moving towards ASICs for switching and general purpose CPUs (usually with a lot of support from the NIC offload capabilities) for routing, even in 'real' networking hardware.
The vast majority of fabric ASICs would never actually utilize additional TCAM necessary to support full tables at line rate in hardware because top of rack switches do not have that many addressable targets, so it's a wasted cost.
And with DPDK optimized software implementations are achieving zero drop line rate for even 100G+ interfaces for much, much lower cost than full table routing ASICs married to fabric ASICs in a chassis switch.
It's not something a lot of users are aware of -- they often think they've bought an ASIC-based router! -- but essentially all of the big vendors entry and mid-level devices are software routers, and they're even trying to figure out how to sell their NOS experience on whitebox hardware without undercutting their branded hardware.
> It's not something a lot of users are aware of -- they often think they've bought an ASIC-based router! -- but essentially all of the big vendors entry and mid-level devices are software routers, and they're even trying to figure out how to sell their NOS experience on whitebox hardware without undercutting their branded hardware.
To be fair [to you], my original claim is a bit of a tautology as I don't really consider software/CPU based CPE gear to be 'real' networking.
I should be more specific. High radix switches/routers are, unequivocally, not built out of CPUs and software, period. To the point of the original discussion, these concentration points are the only place that byte order overhead would be significant. Others in this thread claim it's not significant even in CPU implementations due to optimized instructions, but I personally can't opine on that.
