Wait until the service is confirmed clear of heartbleed and then change your password and enable 2 factor auth? I think that's the best you can do.
Internet security researchers say people should not rush to change their passwords after the discovery of a widespread “catastrophic” software flaw that could expose website user details to hackers.
Suggestions by Yahoo and the BBC that people should change their passwords at once – the typical reaction to a security breach – could make the problem worse if the web server hasn’t been updated to fix the flaw, says Mark Schloesser, a security researcher with Rapid7, based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Tumblr, which is affected, issued a warning to its users on Tuesday night. Although the firm said it had “no evidence of any breach”, and has now fixed the issue on its servers, it recommends users take action.
Indeed I would go so far as to say it’s an essential component of, perhaps even the driving force behind, any truly effective policy response to fight climate change – of which we’ve had none at all implemented so far! Sorry, bicycle lanes and recycling schemes and so forth don’t really make a dent – the problem is just way too big! It’s a global problem which needs global, radical solutions.
What are the policy alternatives, really? A carbon tax? It’s basically the same thing, but less efficient, and far too open to unscientific special pleading (not that cap-and-trade isn’t, but at least it’s objective – cap at X million tons, that’s more or less what you get, evasion and exemptions aside). Personal cap-and-trade? A non-starter, it’s just adding pointless bureaucracy and marketisation to a good basic idea. Massive regulation and power plant shutdowns? Not efficient, not politically feasible, and there’d be massive whining from just about everyone, individuals and businesses, like you wouldn’t believe – it would dwarf the whining about acid rain mitigation, which actually cap-and-trade did a great deal to stop, as the businesses found it wasn’t the end of the world as they’d claimed.
The obvious reason why cap-and-trade has not been very effective in the presence of deindustrialisation and the rise of China is that we need to expand cap-and-trade to include China and other major emitting countries. It can be done, but the West needs to get off its high horse first and recognise that as the biggest per-capita emitters, we in the West need to bear our fair share of emissions reductions. It is not an argument against cap-and-trade, but an argument that, to repurpose an old phrase, “cap-and-trade in one country does not work”.
The mechanism by which long-term public investment and planning will be married with cap-and-trade – and it works, as shown in the example of the UK – is quite simply, democracy. Governments will see that they need to plan ahead for when the cap is lower, or face an angry populace saying “Why didn’t you plan ahead and invest?” Though neoliberalism is in the ascendant, we are not living in an Ayn Rand novel. People still recognise the need to invest in infrastructure like roads and electricity distribution systems, and so they will recognise this need when it comes to green investments.
And with cap-and-trade as the overall guiding policy, governments will also tend to only make the investments that they really need to make, rather than heavy-handedly imposes regulations on things that don’t need to be regulated so specifically. And if the incentives created for the private sector are still not sufficient, you can also front-load the cap trajectory to front-load the emissions reductions more, which the EU should be doing anyway, taking advantage of its low economic growth. (Of course it should also stimulate economic growth, but that is another story.)
Of course if the steps we need to take become obvious and uncontroversial to deal with the problem most efficiently, we can switch to regulation later, but it is far too early to say that – for one thing, geoengineering ideas must be given serious consideration, given the challenges we face, unpalatable though it may be. The point that solving global warming is much more complicated and difficult than dealing with acid rain is an argument FOR market-based solutions like cap-and-trade, not against, because we need a hefty dose of human ingenuity here.
Distributional effects on the poor are a serious concern, but we must also remember that the revenue raised from cap-and-trade presents an opportunity to cut taxes and/or increase spending on public services benefiting the poor. Remitting all or some of the revenues back to the population on a per-capita basis, so that those who use less than the average amount of resources will be better off than they are now and only those who use more than average will be worse off, as done by the last Australian government, is also an option.
There's no way to make cap and trade work without omniscience. Even small estimation errors generate massive swings in carbon prices due to huge price elasticity (carbon credits have no other uses and no other sources). You'd need to babysit the system constantly messing with quotas for it to be workable (like what EU is doing right now). It's entirely hopeless.
Meanwhile all countries have fuel taxes already. Turning these into a single common carbon tax is completely trivial, and it's much easier to tax at the point of entry (production or import) rather than have each small emitter buy quotas.
On April 6, 1722 — 292 years ago today — Russian tsar Peter the Great abolished a beard tax that he had levied many years earlier (1698) on all Russian men. Peter toured Western Europe in 1698, and upon his return he took out a pair of scissors and began cutting the beards of his noblemen. Up to this point for centuries, Russian men had worn long flowing beards. Historians indicate that Peter was determined to “westernize” the Russian lifestyle, so he encouraged western fashion that made sense — a cleanly shaven face was thought to be less dirty than a face covered with hair.
For the bearded, change was hard to embrace; to make the new fashion take hold, Peter levied an annual tax on bearded men. Those who paid the tax, to prove they were exempt from the rule, were given a copper token, which proclaimed, “The beard is a useless burden.”
Apparently, rulers have known for a long time that taxing something discourages it. So here’s my question: Why do we have income taxes? Is the state trying to discourage income?
wikipedia: Peter the Great
Education is a dialogical ie. mutual feedback systems. A well known problem with mutual dependence is that the dialogue can diverge into "mutual hunting". I think :)
Comment of the week, wins 1 internet.
- UCDComputer Science, 2005 - 2008
- LancasterCombined Science, 1997 - 2000
NSA Said to Have Used Heartbleed Bug, Exposing Consumers
The U.S. National Security Agency knew for at least two years about a flaw in the way that many websites send sensitive information, now dub
Minecraft at the movies – hit game to become a film
Film rights to the hugely successful open-world game have been bought by Warner Bros. Lego Movie producer Roy Lee to head the project, but t
5 surprisingly painful things about client-side JS - The Sourcegraph Blog
Updated: The title of this post previously began “Why we left AngularJS: ...”, but that was removed because these points are generally appli
Ezra Klein’s (almost) impossible but definitely praiseworthy dream
The creator of Wonk Blog believes there is an Internet business model for delivering the boring "truth"
UK firms reject Alex Salmond's claims over keeping the pound.
First Minister's plan for sharing sterling is 'the worst of all worlds for separate Scotland'
It’s official: Apple sells more computers than all Windows PCs combined
Apple’s Mac desktops and laptops may still count for a fraction of the global market for PCs, but when you tally up all the computers (iPhon
Likewise.am | Leaving Armenia: What I’ll miss, what I won’t
For the first time in quite a while, I'm leaving Armenia for a non-trivial period of time. I'll be back in a few months, but am seriously re