Posts by boba1l0s2k9 58 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jan 2014
I'm not so sure. One can get Android mobes shipped from China for $40 which have specs not entirely dissimilar to the $75 version of Pocket Chip. It seems to me they're taking a landfill Android and selling it to you in installments. The baseboard, video, screen....and still no LTE chip.
I take it you've never written software for a major commercial product. There are for all practical purposes an infinite number of patents. All of them written in dense indecipherable legalese. Any code you ever write could by some completely unreasonable interpretation of an obscure patent be applied against you. It's not an issue of developers knowingly infringing, or even having any possibility of knowing when they are infringing. It's an issue of patent trolls being able to sue anybody for anything at any time. This is why you need to have your own patents, and/or participate in patent shielding agreements like this so you can defend yourself from amoral opportunist patent trolls that are willing to bend the letter and spirit of any patent or law to make a buck. I've had to deal with this nonsense a couple times and I'm confident you'd be shocked by how vague / meaningless / ridiculous the patents are which are asserted against companies actually producing products.
For http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ It relies on the little known "worldHasEnded" JavaScript type. Those Netscape chaps were forward-thinking -- view source on the site to see for yourself.
For http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
"Every 250 ms, a private satellite fleet measures gravitational distortion at 24 equally spaced points in LEO. This distortion map is compared with the one computed by the Iridium constellation 1 hour prior. If they are equal, the system goes back to sleep for another 250 ms. If they are not equal, the system enters an alert state and takes several more confirmation readings at 50 ms intervals. If after 5 seconds (100 readings) the configuration has not returned to within 1% of normal, the system enters the "armed" state; otherwise, it returns to baseline. If we have entered the "armed" state, it is likely that an extreme gravitational distortion event has occurred. The network then localizes the event with respect to an Earth Centered Earth Fixed map. If the distortion is centered on the LHC, we enter the "active" state; otherwise, the event is logged, the system is put to sleep for 5 seconds (or longer, with a back-off algorithm), and returned to baseline. If we have entered the "active" state, all satellites attempt to initiate a downlink to the nearest base station and set a flag. This flag triggers a stored procedure which updates the web site."
Or in other words: they're just a bit of fun. :)
@Martin: I support your choice to not use Uber. If you believe the London cabs are better, or you prefer Pepsi or Coke, good for you. But let the customer decide. As far as I'm aware Uber doesn't force many people to use their service at gunpoint. If their service sucks, nobody will use it. If their insurance is inadequate for your liking, don't use their service. What's really happening here is that we're preventing customer choice. We're pretending to know what the customer wants better than the customer does. We're using government to stifle disruptive innovation. Let people choose on their own. Let London cabs advertise how much better trained their drivers are, how great their insurance is, etc. And then let the customer decide for themselves.
Too many people are assuming the licensing actually in reality improves safety or quality. New York taxi cartels said the same thing and had the same sort of laws. But it turns out people love Uber and want their service. What is the argument for denying someone the freedom to do business without a guild license or taxi medallion or whatever they call it? This is just taxi cartels. This is crony capitalism. If Uber has a bad service, let them go out of business on merit. Hitting Uber over the head with regulations designed to prevent disruptive innovation is just thuggery.
There are aspects of ICANN I think are broken. Though I'm perhaps even more afraid of what happens if too many different idiots wield that power... There have been several proposals over the years to give more power to countries that I wouldn't trust to borrow my lawnmower, let alone run global DNS policy. I'm quite sure we really don't want DNS to be run by like the UN: toothless, in perpetual deadlock on important issues, and yet willing to vote for political points at the drop of a hat. In fact it might be better to weld the current policies into place and not allow any changes by anyone than to let ICANN or anyone else continue to muck around.
If a business wants to deny service to anyone, for any reason: good for them. I'll be free to open an equivalent shop that accepts anyone and I'll advertise that I'm not a hater like that dreadful shop down the road. There's no reason to use government force to mandate that bigots lie about their bigotry by hiding it. Let them be open about their hatred for fellow humans, and let the rest of us try to change their mind through persuasion and financial incentives. Freedom demands that a private business owner should be free to choose not to engage in transactions with anyone, for any reason. If you think freedom requires that we force one private citizen to do business with another private citizen against their will, you are misusing the word: you meant tyranny.
...are a good bet. Same reason the petrol has 10% ethanol even after it was demonstrated that the total process required to get the ethanol into the petrol resulted in more emissions than just using straight petrol. Hippies are another reasonable bet -- anything labeled organic sounds better to a hippy.
"[there] may be limits on the types of content you can store and share using the Service, such as file types we don't support"
"[we may cancel your service] if we determine that your use violates the Agreement, is improper, substantially exceeds or differs from normal use by other users"
Read the article you linked, it doesn't say they're hacking into those companies, it sounds more like they're watching their internet traffic to understand what IP's do what so they could hack later if needed. Note that the report was sent to CSE, so clearly they're not trying to imply they're hacking into them (CSE wouldn't allow that). Regarding corporate espionage again read the materials in question. It seems pretty clear they're talking about doing whatever is necessary to extract information about military projects (they actually mention it), most of which involve private defense contractors. I'm opposed to most of what the NSA does, but you seem to be putting words in their mouth and making them appear even worse than they are.
"You're an idiot." Gee thanks. :) I find it funny that you say that, and then go on to agree that Muslim radicals are a more immediate threat. Consider it this way: if you have $100 to spend will you spend all $100 on a general anti-religion (or anti-dogma) stance, or will you spend $10 on Christianity, $10 on Judaism, $20 on Islam, and $70 on religion (or dogma) generally? This is the kind of question we need to answer to describe what we each believe would lead to the outcome we desire. There's no wrong answer to this sort of question. I only argue that your priorities should align with the facts of reality. It could be that your knowledge of the facts is such that you would firmly put the $100 generally, or maybe you'd put it all on Judaism, etc. For my part, I think real-world actual harm in action today is an important consideration when deciding how to prioritize spending resources. As you agreed, the facts suggest Muslims are causing more real-world harm today. It is on this basis I would spend more resources combating their worst ideas compared to Buddhists, or Jainism or the Amish. Specific beliefs matter. I do think we should put serious resources toward ending all dogmatism too -- especially religions.
As an ordained minister in The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster I can tell you with confidence that we support fun things like GTA, and we don't support any of that misogyny nonsense. We're all about flimsy moral standards and we're all opposed to dogmatism. And when you die you get a stripper factory (of the desired gender(s)) and a beer volcano. Join us! RAmen!
"it's not the Catholics that are the problem. It's extremist protestants." I absolutely love the fact that some large subpopulation of the world we can publicly and casually debate which interpretation of Yahweh leads to more death without risking our lives to do so. Cheers! If you want to look at only the most current events, I'd probably give The Holy Bible a temporary pass and focus my efforts on the Qur'an first. Consider for example that about a third of Muslims worldwide believe people who leave the faith should be killed -- literally hundreds of millions of Muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
"guilt by association; it is never reasonable" If you have completely certain knowledge of a nuclear weapon about to be launched at a city which will guarantee the death of 10 million innocent people and the only action available to you is to bomb the area where the nuke is and kill the bad actors, their equipment, and also 1 person you know is completely innocent....isn't the collateral damage acceptable? To say you'd choose to save 1 innocent life at the expense of 10,000,000 innocent lives doesn't sound reasonable. If you grant this, then you're granting the reasonableness of collateral damage as a principle. You might argue that some metaphorical panic attacks of innocents are too great a cost against a structure that caused great suffering through mismanagement (e.g. resulting from lost jobs, positive ventures never pursued, etc), but you can't say that such a thing is "never reasonable" -- that's hyperbole. If you truly would choose to save 1 instead of 10 million, then I want you to consider that you're in a very small minority, the kind most people wouldn't want making decisions.
Parallels Virtuozzo (later OpenVZ), Solaris Zones, FreeBSD jails, Linux VServer from 2000/2001. AFAIK IBM used special hardware on POWER boxes to virtualize over 1,000 Linux instances on one small server, but I'll give them credit too. The functionality that became today's Linux containers was patches in 2006, released in 2007, and had LXC support from early on. Docker came on the scene in 2011 I think. Windows has had container tech from 3rd parties for at least a decade too, primarily for thin client app delivery. Container technologies are as old as dirt. Not until Docker were they cool, though, so they deserve credit for making it easier and more popular.
"My IPMI wasn't behind a firewall mainly because I don't care about security." There, FTFY.
What does 1U or colo or number of outlets have to do with foregoing basic security? Own up -- you're lazy and don't care much about security. I sympathize. I'm lazy too and cut corners on security.
http://www.amazon.com/SF-Cable-Outlet-Saver-Splitter/dp/B004PFJYNA/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1406955307&sr=1-12&keywords=Outlet+saver
"Proportionate financially?"
Yes. I agree it's not an ideal thing to have to consider money in the pursuit of justice. But it is a reality. Do you think that police and politicians at times set enforcement priorities or resource allocations in such a way that favors enforcement of some laws at the expense of others? Because they do, I promise. :) So in reality we're *always* balancing cost vs. benefit to society. I think what I hear you saying is that even knowing this, you feel like the cost to pursue this individual is acceptable because not doing so would in the final analysis result in more crime as Joe Average becomes a scofflaw. I disagree -- I see zero chance of the sky falling. But I could be horribly wrong and so I respect your opinion nonetheless.
"The legal and court system has to be seen to work."
I agree. Is the system really working if we have piles and piles of money being spent on this one jerk when there are much more serious crimes to pursue? I'm not suggesting that they give up. Register a Red Notice in Interpol. Add him to do-not-fly list. Put a bounty on his head. And then move on.
"But not until after he's been punished for [...] Bail jumping and contempt of court."
Agreed on enforcement priorities.
"The Judge who authorised the extradition has considered it fully [...] More informed minds than ours have assessed the risk [...]"
Possibly, but I sincerely doubt it. Have you ever seen a court decision that was wrong beyond imagination? Have you ever noticed how many decisions are overturned on appeal? Have you ever heard of a judge lacking the skills and knowledge necessary to properly assess the case before them? Judges are just people like you and I. I think it's far more likely the judge in question didn't seriously consider the risks.
In any case, I think we both agree it would be nice to see Mr. Assange face proper justice. Cheers!
I have no love for Mr. Assange. Regarding my commentary on the merit of spending large sums to keep watch on him my reasoning is two fold. Practically speaking I haven't been able to come up with a scenario where the current response is proportionate -- it seems wasteful. Maybe it's because of my lack of imagination, I grant you that. Second, and more on principle, Lady Justice is supposed to be blindfolded -- treating all before her equally, and merely using her scales to weigh the competing claims. This whole "pound of flesh" and "making an example" business seems much more personal, much less about specific facts and law. More like the kind of "justice" that involves pitchforks and torches and large groups of people. In other words not the kind of "justice" dispensed by Lady Justice. He should definitely have to answer for his alleged crimes, no question. Though it's not unreasonable to consider special circumstances. If he has little chance of a fair trial, or there's a real possibility of him being spirited away outside of the eyes of the law.... We shouldn't ignore this. Having said that, to each his own. I can accept that you may hold a different and equally reasonable assessment of the facts and thus reached a different conclusion. In any case I hope we can both agree he has an ego the size of a planet, is generally a disagreeable person, and we hate the waste of resources. :)
It seems unlikely he's demanding that the police keep watch on him. So rather it's on the police for deciding this is the most productive use of their time. Apparently there is no other crime in London so camping out was as good a use of resources as any. It would be outrageous if there was crime that went unpunished, which is why that never happens. Violate terms of bail or murder 100 people. No difference. Nobody escapes the police. Ever.
Real geeks use Vimperator, an add-on for Firefox that changes the whole UI.
http://www.vimperator.org/vimperator
The only downside is that you will never be able to switch browsers again. No other browser has such a rich and clean vi-based add-on module (and yes, I've tried them all). It's more like a cult. Or the Hotel California maybe. The point is it's so f*cking good you'll put up with anything else that goes wrong in Firefox. Vimperator FTW!
That's what I'd say if I were lying too... We've already seen data showing spooks can hack their stuff. If one spook can do it, so can several. The CEO could even be telling the truth that they have no knowledge of these backdoors. Doesn't change a thing. China would be dumb to not have backdoors ready for key Haweui equipment, though maybe not installed by default.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
