Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This now requires (Score 2) 484

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47315589) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

The Court seems to think it's likely that the Legislative/Executive branches would have modified the law in a way that clearly included what Aereo doing to circumvent it. They're probably right, but what they should have done is refuse to hear the case and let the correct branches of government do their jobs. Many parts of the government are overreaching their authority in ways that are really troubling.

FCC "rules" that jailbreaking is legal. Yeah FCC!
FCC "rules" that Net Neutrality is dead. Boo FCC!

SCOTUS rules that cops need a warrant to search your mobile. Yeah SCOTUS!
SCOTUS rules that Congress meant to include Aereo in a law made before anyone had any idea that technology would make something like Aereo possible. Boo SCOTUS!

Executive says they won't enforce federal drug laws regarding pot. Yeah POTUS!
Executive says it's kosher to kidnap or even kill citizens without due process, as long as they're pretty sure they're bad guys and are physically in some other country at the time. Boo POTUS!

Where the hell are the lawmakers? Oh, that's right, They're busy dicking around spending all their time trying to make the other team look bad.

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47315455) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

If it requires a login/password and a user account, how is that "publicly transmitting"?

Public meaning anyone can sign up to and access the service.

Would the judge also declare that when I'm watching Netflix via wi-fi, I'm also "publicly transmitting"?

Probably yes, whether it's wifi or two tin cans and a string. But, unlike Aereo, Netflix has purchased licenses to allow them to do so.

Comment: Re:Wut? Traffic? (Score 1) 314

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47258645) Attached to: California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

Please explain why heavy traffic around LAX is relevant to the discussion, seeing that both established cab companies and ride companies want to brave the heavy traffic to pick up passengers at the airport.

The city in fact is trying to keep ride companies out.

The amount of cabs in the airport at any given moment is strictly regulated. They can't do that with ride-share apps. More cars = more traffic.

Comment: Those who don't learn history's lessons... (Score 2) 431

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47257957) Attached to: Chinese-Built Cars Are Coming To the US Next Year

In the 1960's the prevailing opinion about Japanese quality is that it was inferior in every way except cost, and there was ample justification for that opinion. Then the same thing happened again a couple decades later, but this time it was Taiwan. In the early 1900's? Germany was the dog-shit bottom-feeder of manufacturing.

All three of the above are now considered to be among the highest-quality manufacturers in the world.

Things change.

Comment: Re:Translation : (Score 1) 314

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47226443) Attached to: California Regulators Tell Ride-Shares No Airport Runs

I take it you don't fly in or out of LAX very much? Traffic is a nightmare. It can take 30-45 minutes to simply loop through the terminals a single time when it's busy, which is damn near every night. I'm not saying that these rules don't defend taxi's turf, but there is more reason to it than just that.

Comment: Bad premise. (Score 1) 90

...few people outside the country know what it's like to live with those access controls, or how to get around them...

Well, there are the millions that visit China each year, and anyone who's ever bothered setting up a VPN connection so they could FaceTime with family or whatever.

Comment: Re:Embarrassing info, or are the feds just idiots? (Score 1) 272

There could be a number of reasons why they don't want the info public

1) It doesn't work that well, or there is an obvious defense against it they don't want public.

2) They've been abusing their power some how by collecting info on people not really suspects, and don't want to be hit up by every divorce lawyer in the country. ( not sure if that's really illegal).

3) They're idiotic power tripping jerks that think its an ultra secret thing that will cause all law enforcement to lose its effectiveness if more people know about it.

4) It contains evidence of alien life forms visits to our planet, and their preference for blackberry cell phones.

5) They've been using it to track some for-real bad guys, and the release of the documents would compromise an ongoing investigation or investigations.

I suspect it's a combination of mostly (2), some (5), and a sprinkling of (3).

Comment: Re:Because Airport Wi-Fi sucks (Score 2) 135

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47173283) Attached to: Free Wi-Fi Coming To Atlanta's Airport

First, in order for airport wi-fi to not-suck, you'll need a massive subnet with a TTL of no more than 30 minutes. Yes, I've been in airports where a /24 subnet was apparently just dandy...

Second, everyone who's in an airport seems to want to stream Netflix or something like that; I do hope that Netflix throws a peering widget their way, because the thousands of iPads in that airport will strain the pipe pretty efficiently.

Third, you're on a single collision domain, half-duplex, along with everyone else. 5GHz may help matters, but 2.4 will still be needed for compatibility, and if you're stuck on it, you'll probably get useful speed out of a dial-up optimized RDP session an an SSH window, but the only way regular web browsing is ever worth it is if you have some absurdly early flight (5AM takeoff or similar), at which point 'using my computer' plays second fiddle to the better activity: sleep.

Sorry, I've just never seen it worth it. I always load up my hard drive before I go, and I've never regretted it.

The airport: the worst place to be in the cloud.

It's an oversimplification to say that it's a single collision domain. Any decent enterprise wireless network uses overlapping access points that will automatically select and change channels based on automated detection of congestion and interference. Yes, there is always some level of frequency overlap, but that is easily addressed.

As far as address spacing goes, there's a number of scenarios in which a /24 can be just fine. Perhaps they are backhauling everything to a concentrator that performs NAT on a per-AP or per-zone basis, coupled with L3 roaming. A single massive subnet with maximum 30 minute session time is probably the worst possible design.

Enterprise mesh wireless has come a long way in the last five or ten years. Shopping malls and airports have wifi networks with multiple hundreds of APs in very high density so that they can gather wifi device location analytics via triangulation in addition to providing guest wireless access. They use it for determining foot traffic patterns and also storefront dwell time and conversion rates. For example, an airport will be interested in knowing where wireless devices are detected at a standstill in high densities, because they may be able to move things around or otherwise modify the physical environment to make it easier for folks to get to where they want to go. Interesting and also somewhat scary stuff.

Comment: Re:So when will the taxi drivers start protesting? (Score 1) 583

Why wouldn't an autonomous car be able to avoid potholes?

I really don't know, can they?

It seems reasonable to me that they easily could, although I don't know if they do already. A lot of the data input for automation comes from cameras, programming pothole detection would be trivial compared to what they've already accomplished.

Comment: Re:Radical Disruption to our Economy and Society (Score 1) 583

by Anonymous Psychopath (#47109415) Attached to: Google Unveils Self-Driving Car With No Steering Wheel

Every car maker is going to start losing market share to Google unless they offer this. Google's head start combined with their better engineers means that Google might become the dominant software provider to cars. Unless car manufacturers come up with software that is equally safe, Google will soon start making more money per car sale than the manufacturers.

Google isn't interested in manufacturing cars. Google is interested in licensing their technology to other companies that already do. This is how it works today. Most of the Japanese companies use Denso. Ford used to use Microsoft but will be using Blackberry/QNX going forward. Google wants to compete with those guys, not with the auto manufacturers themselves.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.