Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bah (Score 1) 291

You didn't watch the video... clearly. He refutes all of your rather mundane arguments with ease. Everything you said, without a doubt is fatalism. You say you're accepting reality. You're not. You're accepting things as they are now, and refusing to believe things could change.

Death is not inevitable. It's just an, as of yet, unsolved problem. If I were to tell you a meteor was heading towards earth, and was scheduled to hit us, killing everyone alive in 100yrs, would you say "Well, we've never stopped a meteor before, we'd better just accept it!"?? Of course not... but that's what we're saying. In 100yrs everyone alive today WILL be killed... not by a meteor, but by aging. For a hell of a lot less money than it would take to stop a celestial object, we could stop aging. So lets stop burring our heads in the sand and take care o fit. The problem of aging will be solved, and not too far off in the future. Likely it will be too late for us, but not for our children or our grandchildren. So lets do it.

Comment: Re:"Stakeholders" (Score 1) 102

by Charliemopps (#47966785) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

You can do all of that without regulating the traffic.

Force the parent company into not creating video content. Done. Telephone companies are already prevented from creating video content due to the 1996 telecommunications act. The Telcos still hate Netflix and want to shape their netflix traffic in return. Yet they have no vested interest in hurting Netflixes product. So why are they mad? Is it possible because Netflix really is behaving badly?

Comment: Re:"Stakeholders" (Score 1) 102

by Charliemopps (#47966709) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

I love this argument. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about yet you tell "Common carrier fixes everything!" When it's not even relevant to this debate at all.

Read about Common Carriers and telecommunications here:
(if you trust Wikipedia)

Please follow the links and read about the communications act of 1934 and the changes to it made in 1996. It's about Phone service. Even the telcos are not regulated in regard to their ISP services. Only the pots lines are, and most ISPs are trying to talk customers into IP phones to get around those laws as well.

Comment: Re:Comcast will love that... (Score 1) 43

So how are they going to finagle fees from us for this? Decoders?

It is scandalous that we have to pay through the nose just for the right to be spied on ....


People think it's bad that corporations control the internet. I'm sure the NSA loves that particular conspiracy theory because what do you think the alternative to corporations is?

Comment: Re:This has been known ... (Score 1) 58

by Charliemopps (#47966185) Attached to: Google Partners With HTC For Latest Nexus Tablet

This was going to be my comment. nvidia flubbed weeks ago, this article adds absolutely nothing to the story.

That's assuming it was a story to begin with, which it's not. It's not even about a product... there's no product yet! It's about an agreement between to companies two possibly make something at some future date. Why would anyone other than a hedgefund manager care about this?

Comment: Metal (Score 1) 201

by Charliemopps (#47966093) Attached to: Friendly Reminder: Do Not Place Your iPhone In a Microwave

Ironically, you CAN put metal in a microwave. Maybe a lot of you are not old enough to remember when Microwaves first became popular in the early 80s but at the time there were warnings all over the news about the horrors of putting metal in a microwave. It will catch fire! Your microwave will explode! etc... etc...

Fast forward to a few years ago, the Mythbusters did a show where they did it. And, to my amazement, nothing happened. Metal is entirely safe to put in a microwave, though you should be aware that it will get surprisingly hot so don't touch it. This was a revelation akin to finding out there was no Santa for me.

Comment: Re:Your employer (Score 4, Insightful) 158

by Charliemopps (#47965081) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

Training is one thing, conferences are another. You can get trained without attending a conference. You seem to be replying with "well if you're employer wanted to keep me, this is what they'd have to do!" That's all fine and great... but what are they really obligated to do? They're obligated to pay for things they expect you to attend. If conferences aren't something they value, then they shouldn't have to pay. If you're prissy and demand lots of back scratching to stay in your job, then fine, they might want to pay for such things to keep you happy. But personally I'd prefer a higher wage and leave out the modern over-hyped version of a flee-market we now call a "conference" It's a waste of my time and often costs 10% of my sallary for me to attend. Wouldn't you prefer a 10% raise? ...and I literally tell my management that. I wont waist your money, so don't waste my time. Pay me more and I wont leave.

Comment: depends (Score 3, Insightful) 158

by Charliemopps (#47964971) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

If your employer expects you to go, they should pay. If they don't care, you should. Anything your employer expects you to be doing, they should be paying for. It's as simple as that.

I, personally, find them worthless marketing scams. At best, all I get out of them is that someone is doing something new that I should google later. Other than that they seem to be sales pitch after sales pitch. I can't stand them and would never pay for an employee to attend. If there's training or something? Cool, I'd pay for that. But lets separate training from conferences. Most real training doesn't happen at conferences anyways.

That being said... if I were running the company that was doing that marketing scam at the conference... i.e. I wanted you to attend to drum up business, that's entirely different and I'd pay for you to go.

Comment: Re:Philosophy of Science (Score 1) 584

by Charliemopps (#47964713) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

It really irks me that we teach more about the objects of Scientific investigation in school (Biology, Physics, etc) then the actual philosophy of Science itself. Sure, there is usually about an hour in HS that covers basic Scientific approach but then it gets left by the wayside.

Schools should be spending more time discussing and learning the philosophy of Science itself.

Just my 2 cents.

The do the same thing with Math. You spend all your time learning multiplication tables, when the "Real" math is knowing how people figured out those equations.

Comment: Re:Risk aversion (Score 1) 173

by Charliemopps (#47964503) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

my point of view has always been "i'm going to throw some money into this future product. I may or may not see any kind of product if I contribute, but i sure as hell won't see a product if i don't." that's when i really want a product to work out. If i'm just "kinda" into it, i'll just wait for them to release and order it then.

Right... the problem is a lot of people expect a lot more than that. They think that someone, somewhere is vetting this stuff, when the fact of the matter is you're giving a total stranger money so they maybe can do something you find interesting.

Comment: Re:"Stakeholders" (Score 1, Interesting) 102

by Charliemopps (#47964175) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

That's an incredibly myopic view of the situation and I get a bit tired of it here on Slashdot. Enforcing net neutrality is a lot bigger of a deal to the public than it appears at the outset. It would be the government is now regulating the actual traffic on the internet. You may think it's a good idea in this regard... but what about when the feds decide they want to enforce other laws via their new powers? Decency laws? Cyber bullying? That doesn't sound so great to me...

Don't get me wrong, I fully support "Net Neutrality" What I don't like is the feds touching the internet. The longer we keep them out, the better. So, I look at the root of the problem. Why do the ISP's want to break net neutrality? It's related to an ongoing fight between Netflix and pretty much every ISP on earth.

To me, if the feds have to get involved, I'd rather see them involved in the peering agreements. They are already heavily involved in a lot of inter-carrier agreements so it wouldn't be anything new. If they simply passed regulation that said Peering agreements must be agreed to by both parties prior to signing, this entire issue would die with no federal involvement in the high level network traffic.

Comment: Re:Risk aversion (Score 1) 173

by Charliemopps (#47963941) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

No, they are trying to prevent themselves from gaining a reputation of being a place that's filled with Scammers. Something that's been well under way for a while now. And, to be honest, I'm not sure how they ever thought this wouldn't happened. As soon as I heard of kickstarter I thought it'd end up going down in flames. I'm rather surprised it's lasted as long as it has.

What they need to do is make clear what your money is for. People seem to expect a lot more than they really get, and need to understand that often what they are really doing is giving the company a "Gift" that may or may not lead to a product the donator is expecting. This is entirely a problem with the expectations of the users, and Kickstarter needs to work to ensure the companies involved can't mislead those users.

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.