Forgot your password?

Comment: Net neutrality: good and bad points (Score 1) 101

by Beeftopia (#47964459) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

1) On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that. The ISP won't guarantee that speed, except in bursts. Kind of like how a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really 1.5 x 3.5. Conflicts arise when people try to use the full connection bandwidth in a sustained manner.

2) On the other hand, lack of net neutrality would open the floodgates for corporations to manipulate traffic. To create slow and fast lanes, to favor content, to create yet another pricing tier for American consumers who already pay among the highest prices in the world for high speed internet.

Based on the fact the government is already under regulatory capture (head of FCC is a telecom executive, head of FDA is a Monsanto executive, 2nd in command at the central bank is a Citigroup executive, etc, etc), allowing net neutrality to be defeated will result in a bad outcome for consumers.

Net neutrality is not perfect, but it's much better than ceding more control to cable companies.

Comment: The less you understand it... (Score 2) 190

by Beeftopia (#47951855) Attached to: Why a Chinese Company Is the Biggest IPO Ever In the US

The less you understand the company, the more attractive it is. I suspect the opacity of its operations are a draw.

I remember the tech bubble: "Two guys with a server and a dream" could make millions (on paper). If they cashed out quickly enough, they could turn it into currency.

Comment: There are other factors that influence weight (Score 2) 588

by Beeftopia (#47806463) Attached to: Low-Carb Diet Trumps Low-Fat Diet In Major New Study

I track my calories quite closely. Have for a few years now. Late last year, I went off meds - steroid-based - that I'd taken for decades for a chronic condition which had gone away. In the course of about 2 months, I gained ten pounds without changing my caloric intake. Freaked me out because I'd worked so hard to lose the weight.

That strongly suggested to me that there are in fact, other factors at play than just calorie balance. Calorie balance is a significant component but there seem to be other significant factors at play as well.

+ - IEEE Spectrum Ranks The Top Programming Languages->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Working with computational journalist Nick Diakopoulos, we at IEEE Spectrum have published an app that ranks the popularity of dozens of programming languages. Because different fields have different interests (what's popular with programmers writing embedded code versus what's hot with web developers isn't going to be identical) we tried to make the ranking system as transparent as possible—you can use our presets or you can go in and create your own customized ranking by adjusting the individual weightings of the various data sources we mined.--Stephen "FTC obDisclosure" Cass."
Link to Original Source

+ - Researcher proposes "multicompiler" to prevent instruction-level exploits->

Submitted by Beeftopia
Beeftopia (1846720) writes "A researcher proposes the concept of a "multicompiler" to generate a unique, slightly different set of binary instructions in each compiled output file in order to disable instruction-level attacks. From the article: "Dr Franz has already built a prototype that can diversify programs such as Firefox and Apache Linux. Test attacks designed to take over computers running the resulting machine code always failed. The worst thing that happened was that the attack crashed the target machine, requiring a reboot. The rest of the time it simply had no perceptible effect. Dr Franz puts the chance of a hacker successfully penetrating one of his randomised application programs at about one in a billion.""
Link to Original Source

+ - The mass of elementary particles is fundamentally unknowable

Submitted by StartsWithABang
StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "You might think there are few physical quantities that are absolutely fixed when it comes to matter: properties that are so fundamentally inherent that even the weirdness of quantum mechanics can’t touch them. But the quantum nature of the Universe will have none of our prejudices, and will simply do what it does whether we like it or not. And that means, puzzlingly enough, that it’s physically impossible to know, exactly, what the mass of any one particle actually is!"

+ - Site of 1976 'Atomic Man' accident to be cleaned->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes ""Workers are finally preparing to enter one of the most dangerous rooms in the world — the site of a 1976 blast in the United States that exposed a technician to a massive dose of radiation and led to his nickname: the "Atomic Man."

Harold McCluskey, then 64, was working in the room at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation when a chemical reaction caused a glass glove box to explode.

He was exposed to the highest dose of radiation from the chemical element americium ever recorded — 500 times the occupational standard.

Hanford, located in central Washington state, made plutonium for nuclear weapons for decades. The room was used to recover radioactive americium, a byproduct of plutonium.

Covered with blood, McCluskey was dragged from the room and put into an ambulance headed for the decontamination center. Because he was too hot to handle, he was removed by remote control and transported to a steel-and-concrete isolation tank.

During the next five months, doctors laboriously extracted tiny bits of glass and razor-sharp pieces of metal embedded in his skin.

Nurses scrubbed him down three times a day and shaved every inch of his body every day. The radioactive bathwater and thousands of towels became nuclear waste.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:One disturbing bit: (Score 2) 484

by Beeftopia (#47315493) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

If certain actions criminalize a religion without just cause (i.e. the criminalized set of acts is representative of a harmless behavior, or a set of non-criminal acts that only happen under this religion in this way)

It seems to me that if a reasonable interpretation of a law leads to negative unintended consequences, it then becomes the legislative branch's duty to rectify it, not the judicial branch's. Creating an incoherent ruling merely to achieve a desired social outcome severely undercuts the separation of powers, it seems to me.

Comment: Re:Predictable (Score 1) 484

by Beeftopia (#47315361) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

Regardless of the clever implementation, Aereo behaved like a subscription cable service. How it collected and stored programming was not relevant to this.

Appearances can deceive: The elephant bird may have looked like an ostrich but it's not related to ostriches. It's actually related to kiwis.

From the article: "Launched a year ago in New York and then extended to 10 other U.S. cities, it allows customers to watch over-the-air TV programs on a smartphone, tablet, or computer for as little as $8 a month."

Here's how Aereo [works | worked]. Redirecting a free over-the-air product over the web is a clever idea. It would seem to me that it would give advertisers a broader reach.

I don't think this tech is going to go away. This ruling merely consolidates the power of the existing media companies over the broadcast medium. Which, in my opinion, is regrettable. They already have too much power IMO.

Comment: Re:One disturbing bit: (Score 4, Interesting) 484

by Beeftopia (#47315177) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

He's not: "As Stephen Breyer, one of the Supreme Court justices, said in this week’s hearing, “What disturbs me is I don’t understand what the decision for you or against you is going to do to all kinds of other technologies.”

It seems to me that judges should be ruling based on the law, not perceived ancillary social influences. That's why we have three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative makes the law, and judicial merely determines if actions are legal or not legal? Quaint, no?

People are always available for work in the past tense.