Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score 1) 374

I read the quote below. I don't think I'm being off-base when I suggest that it could be fairly paraphrased as, "You better let us take what we want and not turn this into a large-scale war. We have nukes, have been taking steps to protect ourselves from other nuclear powers, and are reminding you of those facts for your own good, because it'd be a shame if something happened to you guys if you decided to go toe-to-toe with us."

I'll admit, it's not phrased as a threat, but within the context of the surrounding quote, it's quite evident that it is, even more so than when it's pulled out by itself, I'd say.

Comment: Re: (Score 1) 374

I keep seeing this group being painted as in-the-know patriots who have a monopoly on sanity in the midst of chaos, but in trying to look up information on them, I'm finding as much stuff that's damning as encouraging. For instance, in 2010 they said that an Israeli pre-emptive military strike against Iran was imminent, since Israel was worried about losing their justification for war when news got out that Iran had not restarted their nuclear weapons development. And while they did take issue with the pretext for war in Iraq, they also said that one reason the US shouldn't attack Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was likely to use chemical weapons against the invading US forces.

Here's their Wikipedia page:

They may be ex-intelligence officers or whatnot, but their track record seems to be rather hit-or-miss to me. I see no reason to take what they're saying here at face value, though I do think that what they're saying should be considered, albeit, with a grain of salt.

Comment: Re:Bob Truax did it (Score 1) 67

by Anubis IV (#47810297) Attached to: SpaceX Challenges Blue Origin Patents Over Sea-Landing Rocket Tech

You're reading something into my comment that I didn't put there. I was pointing out that the AC's claim wasn't substantiated by his link. Nothing more. You're preaching to the choir when it comes to thinking that this patent is invalid and that others have already done it before, but that shouldn't stop us from fact-checking claims that we believe support our side, which is all that I was doing here.

Comment: Re:However... (Score 1) 406

by Anubis IV (#47795081) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

Good clarification. Thanks. It doesn't change what should happen from the situation I described, but it does add another wrinkle for if things don't go that way and the US decides to try and compel Microsoft into action, since it'd be an even worse situation than I had originally realized, given the precedent they'd be setting.

Comment: Re:re I don't care (Score 1) 406

by Anubis IV (#47793575) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

Quick caveat that needs to be made here: the US courts are free to request any data at all from Microsoft, and the onus is (as it should be) on Microsoft to deny the request if it would mean breaching a law. After all, what's the alternative? Have the government first make a request of Microsoft for the locations of where the data is being stored, then tell Microsoft, "hey, we checked, and the laws over there are totally cool with this request, so hand it over"? The system is working how it should: a request is made, and the entity producing the document pushes back when necessary.

What the government shouldn't be free to do, however, is to compel Microsoft to produce the data once Microsoft has made it clear that doing so will result in a breach of European privacy laws. So far, we're still at the "request" phase, and Microsoft is now pushing back. If the appeals court comes down on the side of the government though, that'd be tragedy of immense proportions.

Comment: Re:customer-centric (Score 1) 406

by Anubis IV (#47793549) Attached to: Microsoft Defies Court Order, Will Not Give Emails To US Government

No, the others had it right. To draw on the analogy some more, the US isn't invading Europe to open the safe deposit box: it's ordering Microsoft to produce documents that it knows they possess, which is something that courts all over the world are allowed to do and do all the time. As a US company, Microsoft is subject to US law, even when abroad (e.g. laws outlawing bribes in foreign countries), including orders to produce the requested information. If I'm the bookkeeper for an organization, the courts can order me to produce the books, regardless of where I'm keeping them. Doesn't matter if they're in a safe, the Caymans, or outer space, I'm still expected to produce them...or provide a very good explanation for why I can't.

And that's the important wrinkle here: producing the documents would force Microsoft to violate laws in the countries where the documents are actually located. For all the US courts knew, maybe Microsoft had a server farm in Redmond where the files were located, so it's possible that Microsoft could have produced the documents without violating any laws. Now that they've made it clear that isn't the case, however, it's time for the courts to decide which way things should go.

Even so, I think it's pretty obvious that the US knew full-well what it was doing and that they're not acting in good faith nor anyone's best interests. As an American, the last thing I want to see is that data getting handed over.

Comment: Re:Seagate failures (Score 3, Informative) 316

by Anubis IV (#47762595) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

If you bought all of the drives at the same time and they all failed in such a short span, the likely cause is a bad batch, rather than some extraordinarily poor designs on the part of the manufacturer. And while a bad batch does reflect poorly on the manufacturer, the fact is, all of the manufacturers have bad batches from time to time.

Comment: Re: Switched double speed half capacity, realistic (Score 1) 316

by Anubis IV (#47762587) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Isn't it the outer portion, rather than the inner portion, given that you can reach more per revolution if it's written to the outer edge, on account of the greater circumference? And if so, then yup, this is a viable technique for speeding up read times. OS X actually implemented something similar as far back as 10.4, where it'd move the OS and other frequently-used files to the outermost portions of the platter in order to improve read performance. I never really noticed a difference, personally, but Apple clearly thought there was one, given that they implemented it into their OS as a standard feature.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly