Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not entirely clear. (Score 1) 191

by Reziac (#47531107) Attached to: A New Form of Online Tracking: Canvas Fingerprinting

Sounds like it's time for a major browser to implement a default feature (so it becomes common as of the next update):

"Return opaque white canvas unless the user instructs otherwise."

Because I can't think of any good reason why the default should be "Return valid canvas" (tho "Ask" might also be a good setting).

I foresee the next step being websites that refuse to speak to you until they receive something they think is a valid canvas... at that point we'd want to add "Return random canvas" where "random" means "made up of common-as-dirt elements so it looks tolerably real".

Comment: Re:... until everyone does it (Score 1) 191

by Reziac (#47531055) Attached to: A New Form of Online Tracking: Canvas Fingerprinting

One might drag forth the "buggy manufacturers' argument": if your product is no longer needed or wanted, you can't force people to buy it.

Of course that would depracticalize a good deal of the Web, but point being that it's not a *right*. They can try to sell it to us, of course, but how invasive should they be allowed to become? At what point does their "making a living" become "at our expense" ??

Comment: Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. (Score 1) 285

Old Sam Kinison joke, about starving kids in Africa: "These kids don't need food. What these kids need is luggage. We have deserts in America, too. WE JUST DON'T LIVE IN 'EM!!! AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Except that we do. And we farm vast deserts, too.

Comment: Re:Cost (Score 1) 157

by Antique Geekmeister (#47529763) Attached to: "Magic Helmet" For F-35 Ready For Delivery

> This is especially bad if they turn out to be seriously vulnerable to any missile system developed that isn't ruinously expensive per shot or a closely held secret used only by somebody's elite guard

Or if, say, the very large and expensive amount of fuel used b supersonic aircraft can be cut off by the opposing force bombing the oil lines from their own country that we relied on to get cheap fuel. It's a bit of a conundrum when the country you're invading is a major source of your fuel. Or if what you need to "win" the conflict is troops and engineers and nurses on the ground to re-establish water, food, and medical supplies after a decade of civil strife.

$500,000 missiles that can hit another supersonic craft at speed is a complete waste of resources in most modern conflicts. The more sophisticated US craft, and their pilots, very effectively cleared the air and the ground of Iraqi and Afghanistani armor and military vehicles in the last few wars. But I'm afraid the lessons of Vietnam and Korea were ignored. Successful air campaigns lead to wars of occupation, and both countries have _centuries_ of experience of outlasting foreign invaders.

Comment: Re: name and location tweeted... (Score 0) 651

Please, please. Don't compare a restaurant to a plane, or bus, or a public street, or a simply invent legal anaglogies. It gets very confusing very fast.

A plane is not a "public place". People need purchased tickets to board, and that ticket can be _revoked_ by the other party. It may be enormously inconvenient, or expensive, or a contract violation, But that has little if nothing to do with law about "public spaces". It doesn't make this situation reasonable.

Comment: There is a definition (Score 1) 3

by smitty_one_each (#47529585) Attached to: niwdoG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . . .

. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything? The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country. Milady, thou dost protest too much, methinks. But that, at least, is in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 30

by smitty_one_each (#47529567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while
If you did not writer this reply below on the page, at least take this as constructive feedback:

Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.

Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with much of any of the positive message of the Word.
Also not in keeping: being a doormat, or tolerating injustice.
Is your opinion of the Bible and its teachings so simplistic and bloody-minded that you think, as a logical consequence, it should render human beings as doormats?

Loose bits sink chips.

Working...