chuck

joined 1 year ago
[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

No it's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

If they are out to get us it's just baffling to me. The internet was originally designed as a communications tool to survive large parts being damaged in the event of a major disaster/attack.

It got hijacked by people first who used it to share less and scientific information and more for the lack of a better word human information. Then corporations came and wanted to extract value from it some how. So we had the Dotcom bubbles and pop-up ads.

Now I don't have the hindsight now to succinctly explain what happened next but then Facebook became a dominant social media platform. And everyone gave them info about themselves contrary to the previous advice about never using your real name on the internet.

Now we have governments world wide actively trying to police porn a good 50 years after it existed on the internet. 20 years since it was freely and widely available as streaming video? What's the goal trying to tax free porn somehow?

I think the genie is out of the bottle at this point.

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It's wild because back in the day they told us don't let anyone know your real name or where you live if you can help it. Now it's let's see your driver's license to verify you before you can look at cat videos...

But how much of this is actually new trying to build a world order and how much is just ignorance in the capabilities of the technology of the members of the Senate and House of Commons

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 53 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (12 children)

Ok I don't understand this push to block porn at a country wide level.

Who wants this and why?

I honestly don't see why. Most to the time they tell you follow the money but I can't think how blocking porn helps anyone but VPN providers, and old school porno mag and video publishers.

Maybe this is a fundamentalist puritanical thing? But how is it getting such wide support? Are there that many but hurt virgins in the Senate and House of Commons?

Argh so many questions and this feels so absurd.

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Yea this is a murky area, there are things that are clearly acts of engineering namely civil engineering projects bridges, factories, etc., that fit very well with the way the title of engineer is sanctioned province by province.

It gets murky for me with transportation things, here I still believe they should be scanctioned engineers but I don't feel the provinces are the best ones to mandate who should be a licensed engineer for something that travels at 700 kph across the country, I think that's more a national level interest.

Messing things further is in other countries there isn't a special meaning to the word engineer and it's missused in our sense of context. The title is tossed around in some places for things like sanitation engineer and software engineer, where what these folks are doing is clearly not acts of engineering but the title is given In lieu of increased pay.

Electrical engineering is smack dab in the grey area if it was work on a big power plant sure traditional act of engineering. Designing firmware for a mass produced widget may not be. But if the job is being advertised in the US they'd both be looking for an electrical engineer. And a lazy hr person here may be looking for an EE in Canada skipping over candidates that don't have the certificate from the provincial engineering body but can do the job as good or if not better.

Again this confusion is avoided if everyone knows Engineer is a very loaded word and need a to be handled with care in the confines of Canada, but we as Canadians need to understand others don't give the same care to this word.

The PPC guy is probably playing this up to get him free publicity at this point as he should be painfully aware of this from his undergraduate courses beating it into I his skull.

That said it's not a bad idea to examine the details to see if updates can be made to definitions in the provincial acts so engineers can better serve the public and we can avoid policing the use unnecessarily. I also think we should have a federal level dealing with acts of engineering that normally cross provincial boarders

Argh way to long winded owell enjoy the wall of text

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Probably just want to play one of those heritage minutes videos before you start a video.

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 49 points 11 months ago (10 children)

Ah I've gotten to the point where I have to define what "frame" and epoch each time base is in before I'll touch the representation of time( Unix,Gregorian, etc) .To be honest I'm probably just scratching the surface of time problem.

Hell probably the reason we haven't seen time travellers is we suck at tracking time and you probably need to accurately know your time and place to a very good precision to travel to a given point and we can't say where and when that is with enough accuracy to facilitate where to land. And people don't want to land in the earth's surface or 10000 km away from a stable orbit. Maybe some writer can build that out for a time travel book or to discount it for some reason lol

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ok I'll take the obvious bait...

A Trump/Pierre partnership would never work because Trump is an ass and would never knowingly work with someone without trying to screw them over. So any deal would implode or be so one-sided it would be pointless to even start talks.

Heck is bet this would just end with double WEF influence

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yea then they just start shooting down everything randomly,

And really want needs to be modified on the missiles? Sounds more like an airliner issue to me...

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

First Glonass is a mess, missing quite a few operational satellites Galileo is just ramping up.

Interms of what is broadcast they still work on the same principle satellites broadcast time receiver does something like a linear least squares fit to estimate position, and time.

Mixing all the sources and doing a linear least squares like fit means the bad guy has to spoof more signals, and this system will be more robust but it is susceptible to the same attack just ramped up a bit

[–] chuck@lemmy.ca 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Huh what do you propose then, go back to the 1960s and ensure they are only using VOR and DME ground equipment. There isn't a check sum to check on GPS/GNSS it just a bunch of satellites broadcasting what they think is the correct time. If you jam those and replace them with signals close enough but wrong values you can trick the math that's used inside the GPS/GNSS receiver that computes the the position (and velocity), and it looks like this signal can be introduced slow enough to trick the receiver in real-world applications. One trick to protect yourself is to ensure the signals you receive are from the direction you expect but we aren't going to attach directional antennas on every face of a civilian aircraft, to ensure the strongest signal is from the top of the plane and not the bottom. Essentially civil navigation equipment isn't supposed to be messed with and if it is authorities are supposed to go over and arrest and fine the idiots doing things over the radio they shouldnt. When the bad guy is a government well yea I guess that plan doesn't work and governing bodies such as ICAO should impose penalties like no commerical aircraft from companies from those countries are not allowed elsewhere.

view more: ‹ prev next ›