Axil and Jed, I think this is an issue. I do not think that the solution will come easy but it will come - more or less good. My thought; why do we need to participate in this war? who benefits? Thinking a little outside the box. What is it that we need to protect in the US, that people in Spain do not need to protect. As I can see it the nations have an interest because they want to keep the tax money in this nation and not in another nation. However, that interest goes away if we have a more apt tax system. The other group that have this interest of conquer and divide id the criminals. A specialist in France or Japan or Chile will have very similar capacity to destroy or defend the infrastructure we are talking about. Why do they want to destroy what their colleague has built? It is not like they can steal anything they can just be equally well off. If they all built infrastructure than there would be only benefits. I will make an example so it becomes more clear. I guess otherwise I will have someone saying that I am naive and express wishful thinking. In Europe the railway system was built and designed in more or less each country by itself. I have never heard of that different nations tried to destroy each others rail system (except during war, which where induced because of factors beyond the rail systems). Instead the different nations found ways to find standards or design systems to handle the different distance between the rails for example. There was no real benefit in keeping a nation specific system. Moving trains around the continent or data and knowledge around the world - what is the difference. I like this LENR community as there is input from Russia, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania US, etc. Seldom is there a voice for keeping other nations away from the knowledge.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As the extent and importance of automation grows in the life of a nation, >> so to will the number and importance of the people who create, attack, and >> protect that automation infrastructure. >> > > I doubt this will be a problem much longer. It would be easy to improve > security with a better design for the internet and some other key > technology. It is just a matter of passing laws and spending the money. It > should have been done 10 years ago. This crisis reminds me of the crisis > with steam engine boilers in the late 19th century. There were many boiler > explosions because there no standards, inspections or codes. The ASME was > founded in 1880 to deal with the problem. It established codes and > standards, and the situation improved, but the problem was not solved until > the codes were written into laws until the early 20th century. After that, > the problem abated and boiler explosions are extremely rare today. > > See: > > https://www.asme.org/about-asme/engineering-history > > At present there is not much incentive to improve internet security. No > one wants to pay for it. The other big problem is credit cards, which are > robbed by the millions. The credit card companies probably figure it is > cheaper to accept the losses than to fix the problem. They do not take into > account that theft is annoying the public, and some of the losses are not > discovered and thus paid for by consumers instead of the credit card > issuer. They are finally introducing the EMV credit card security standard > which will greatly reduce theft. > > Many other hazards and scourges can be reduced with technology. Most > pollution could easily be reduced. The danger of casualties from fire can > be practically eliminated with smoke detectors. We do not fix these > problems because it costs money, not because we don't know how to fix them. > > That is not to suggest that all technical problems might be easily fixed. > > - Jed > >
