Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Maybe if you understood the the business of war (Score 1) 19

"I will not endeavor to understand why, it's only to point out a factual observation that you are mirroring those blogs you read, and they get their crap from the same wire as the "liberal" press. I'll let you in on a little secret, the press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications. I believe you would need specific clearances to know what's happening. I'm going on the assumption you don't"

The logical conclusion to this argument is that you need a security clearance to form an opinion on policy and that is hogwash. In fact many people without such a clearance, including academics and others, have good track records of getting issue after issue right when the people with the clearances were getting it all wrong.

Comment: Re:Sorry (Score 1) 19

"This is where I'm going with the argument. It's one thing to say "we cannot take any direct action now"."

THAT actually sounds very weak to me. The implication I would take is that you feel you should be taking action, but you've been deterred (for now.)

My position is really much stronger. If there were a good reason to be involved then fine, WWIII, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, I am down. I am one crazy mofo and I cannot be deterred when I choose to act.

But this? We have no vital interest to defend here, the only thing on the line for us is the prestige of the STUPID SOBs that started and continued the deliberate policy of antagonizing and encircling Russia.

Their personal prestige is on the line and deserves to take the hit. But that is not the same as our national prestige and we should be clarifying that line right now instead of trying to blur it.

But we are not doing that. Our government by its actions is making clear that it values these officials personal prestige more than it values many other things one might think would take precedence - including the well-being of our troops in Afghanistan. As I am sure you are aware, they have a bit of a supply chain problem, and Russia is being enormously helpful in regards to that. So far they have not withdrawn that help, but how much longer? What happens to our troops when both the southern and the northern route is cut? Is it not completely irresponsible to go around bear-baiting without at the very least getting our men out of Afghanistan first?

"As an example, we have NATO allies in the Baltics. Have we signaled anything to them other than "You are effed"?"

I think it's important to question WHY we've been violating our agreement with Russia and expanding NATO east before addressing that directly. This is a history of provocation that is part of the context here, and while it would be wonderful to have a time machine and just go back and avoid that error, the fact that we cannot do that should not be allowed to become an excuse to perpetuate the errors - to double down on bad bets. That's a road to ruin.

Now, we are here now, and yes we have NATO allies in the Baltics. And we have been sending both ships and planes into the area in the reports I have seen. Sounds like just enough to start a war but nowhere near enough to win one. And I think that's silly. I would advise taking a step back and asking whether or not there is any need to be worried about them, and I would have to say no. Russia has not threatened them, and seems highly unlikely to do so.

But then again bears ARE dangerous. Keep poking it and sooner or later you might well cause what you want to avoid.

Comment: Sorry (Score 1) 19

""The answer is what is so obvious -- you immediately fly in major supplies of light weaponry and defensive weaponry, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, so you begin to arm the Ukrainians, so when Putin make a calculation, he understands there will never be any NATO troops in Ukraine to oppose him,†Krauthammer said."

/me facepalms hard.

I will not disagree that Obama has done an awful job here but this guy is nuts! What he's really saying is that he would double-down on Obamas foolish bets and deliberately start WWIII right now. Over Crimea?

Sorry man but this is the dumbest plan imaginable. Massive costs in blood and treasure over something that does not matter in the slightest to us, and that is best case.

Comment: Re:I Pay (Score 1) 319

by Arker (#46762507) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket
Problem with that line of argument (besides the stupid personal attacks which do not contribute) is that this was never on Netflix's end and that has been confirmed over and over again. Problem only affects people on comcast, and only after someone at comcast got the bright idea to shake Netflix down.  Comcast customers (the few of them with the technical knowledge that is) could get around the breakage by disguising their traffic and many did so.

I hope you are getting paid well to astroturf here, enough to compensate you for your integrity.

Comment: Re:I Pay (Score 1) 319

by Arker (#46762211) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket
"It is not Comcast's responsibility to provide enough bandwidth for you to stream a 3rd party software at maximum bandwidth"

Yes, if you paid them for that bandwidth, it is indeed their responsibility to provide it. Third party software? Everything on your computer is third party software, what else would you be using?

Your argument appears to make no sense whatsoever.

Comment: Re:Wat? (Score 4, Insightful) 569

by Arker (#46761787) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?
"The problem here is that people have been using the argument that Open Source is better because these issues can't happen "because" of the visibility."

No, just no. No one with any sort of a clue ever argued these issues cannot happen with Free Software. It's good practice, it helps, but it's no silver bullet. That's just as true as it ever was and this news in no way contradicts that.

Comment: Re:The whole approach is wrong (Score 1) 188

by Arker (#46761253) Attached to: The Security of Popular Programming Languages
"Or at least no such thing as a project that only employs or accepts contributions from such programmers."

You could probably find a few drawing decent salaries in less public areas, but certainly it's a skill that the tech world in general has no appreciation for at all. And even though I hate it I can understand why - if you have two companies developing a similar product, one does it quick and cheap, the other takes the time to do it right - the first one will 'own the market' before the second can get there. And with that position it has the cash flow to keep paying programmers, while the second one closes their doors.

The same dynamic still plagues non-commercial projects as well, a quick but shoddy project can gain mindshare and take off before one that does things right has a product to show at all.

There are a few places where people are willing to pay the price for secure code, and the way things are going I suspect that is increasing, but it's still a tiny minority of available positions.

Comment: Re:So Netflix wants to change how it connects (Score 4, Informative) 319

by Arker (#46758189) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket
You have basically everything backwards here.

Netflix is not the comcast customer. Netflix pays their own ISP for their bandwidth already.

It's not Netflix which is using all this bandwidth on comcasts network - it's comcast customers who are using it. And they already paid for it.

Comcast wants to bill twice. I am sure they would bill 20 times if they could get away with it.

And they are the 800lb gorilla with an effective monopoly position in many markets and no scruples whatsoever. Netflix folded to extortion, and the precedent is certainly not one that will benefit any users, unless it's the users that are also comcast stock owners.

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928