Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:ARM is the new Intel (Score 1) 99

by hairyfeet (#46776849) Attached to: Intel Pushes Into Tablet Market, Pushes Away From Microsoft

And this is different from what Google is doing with Android....how exactly? In case you missed the memo Google has been taking bog standard X86 laptops and locking them down worse than cellphones and as far as EEE? Google is already moved into the third phase by making more and more apps simply not work without GooglePlay API.

I find it hilarious how many are cheering because "Android has gots teh Linux" when in reality Google is about to make them its bitch. Have fun with that laptop that won't run 90% of the distros on distrowatch thanks to DRM or that latest version of AOSP that won't run half the apps in the playstore because its all tied to Google APIs, but "its teh Linux" so it can't be locked right?....oh wait

Comment: Re:Subtle attack against C/C++ (Score 1) 181

by bzipitidoo (#46776621) Attached to: The Security of Popular Programming Languages

I wonder if zeroing out memory can go even deeper than the OS. Like, why not have RAM that can zero itself on command? Just turn off the DRAM refresh for a fraction of a second, and viola!

Memory moves have been made much faster by bypassing the CPU, for instance with hard drives with the DMA mode rather than PIO mode. So they are using a DMA from a /dev/zero device or more like a 4k page of zeroes to a range of memory? What you're describing sounds like an excellently lazy method. Zero newly allocated the memory when it is the object of a pagefault, not eagerly when allocated. Though nowhere near as bad as a PIO (or just PO?) method of pushing zeros out of the CPU and into memory, I'm guessing that is still a small performance hit. Is it?

Comment: Re:Holy shit (Score 1) 366

by Rich0 (#46776255) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

And that's hard?

As mentioned further below, saving ~$5000/year is possible - maybe throw away that $100/mo TV subscription or something.

Hell, my wife is in her mid 20's and I'm in my early 30's and we manage to squirrel away $28,000 every year on our two salaries (I'm a server admin, she's an engineer). If you're in the right industry and have a modicum of self-restraint it isn't too difficult to save.

...and are married to somebody with comparable income. Swap that wife out for somebody who doesn't make much more than minimum wage, and your $28k/yr basically evaporates. You'd save more being single, but your non-discretionary expenses as a single aren't that much lower than a couple's.

Comment: Re:Holy shit (Score 1) 366

by Rich0 (#46776147) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

No, but you can start by eliminating that $100/mo TV subscription, and then find some other ways to save money too

I'm constantly amazed at what people spend per month on things they think are "necessary".

Like saving up for retirement? Not sure why having a million dollars to spend in retirement is more important than having $100/month to spend on cable TV today?

Comment: Re: WIndows 8.1 preview install instructions (Score 1) 64

If you have a Nokia, it's easy enough to flash the stock (8.0) OS back again using Nokia Care Suite. Probably also true for Samsung WP8 phones, which have a Flashing tool and ROMs have been released at least for some of them. Not sure about HTC or Huawei, but the latter has custom ROMs (so it's almost certainly possible to go back) and the former has *historically* had lots of flashing tools and at least stock ROMs available. Not sure for WP8 though.

Comment: Re:Way to lose an easy case... (Score 1) 116

by Rich0 (#46775533) Attached to: Lavabit Loses Contempt Appeal

No, there should be a Get Out of Jail Free card at the end because you didn't do anything wrong. People who didn't do something wrong shouldn't be in jail, period.

True. But the defendant doesn't get to define right and wrong. Many murderers don't think they did anything wrong. You might not think it's wrong to refuse a court order. That doesn't make either right.

I never said the defendant doesn't get to define right and wrong. However, people who do nothing wrong shouldn't be harassed by the court, whether what they did was legal or not. That is, courts should be about arriving at justice, not determining if the law was followed.

Comment: Define homeless.... (Score 2) 159

by Lumpy (#46775515) Attached to: GoPro Project Claims Technology Is Making People Lose Empathy For Homeless

The hustling scammers, the druggies and drunks, the mentially ill, or the real homeless that are down on their luck and actually trying?

Because the first two I ignore completely. The mentially Ill I feel really bad for, and the onesthatare really down on their luck are not on the street corners hustling for money. Those people are helped by my donations to homeless shelters and to women and children shelters.

The fake hustler that is claiming they are a veteran standing there with a sign? Or the one guy I see push his wheel chair up to the corner then get in it with his hand out? they can stuff it.

Comment: Re:Yay for government!!! (Score 3, Interesting) 101

by Lumpy (#46775329) Attached to: Industry-Wide Smartphone "Kill Switch" Closer To Reality

It is a royal pain in the ass to get a IMEI blacklisted. I had to fight AT&T even though I sent them the police report and the phone was in their records as my property.
"But it's currently activated" Yes, by the thief, blacklist it.
"but that is one of our gophone customers", Yes the thief blacklist it.
"but but....." Do I need to get a lawyer involved?
"One moment please...."

99% will not force them to blacklist the phone but just let it go. To hell with who they sold the phone to, I was not going to stop until the phone was forever disabled from being a phone.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1247

by Above (#46773267) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights. For instance your free speech rights can't come at the expense of someone else's free speech rights. The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others. If the theater is empty, go right ahead.

In the case of the FCC, their jurisdiction is only over "the commons", that is the broadcast spectrum. If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules. It's a Tragedy of the Commons situation, one person/company/entity can't take more than their fare share of a common resource.

By contrast, "cable TV" is a private enterprise, not using the common broadcast spectrum, and paid for by individual subscribers. That's why you can get PPV porn, HBO can swear all they want, and so on. The FCC can't control what they do, because they are not using the commons.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1247

by Above (#46773195) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2. So no, the states can't preempt the constitution, by joining the union they signed on to agreeing. Fun fact, "Congress" in this usage almost certainly includes state legislatures, just as it includes the house and senate. It's a generic term meaning a gathering of the people's representatives.

Personally, I find the phrase "shall not be infringed" to be stronger than "Congress shall make no laws", especially given the number of groups besides Congress that make laws in this country (every city, county, state government, as examples).

I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

It is in fact possible to "correctly" limit someone else's rights. Oddly enough, most people understand this in a first amendment context, where the "no laws" prohibition makes it more dicy. Yell "fire" in a crowed movie theatre and you can be prosecuted for "inciting a panic" or "causing a disturbance". As a society we recognize that while you have a right to free speech, that right is only absolute in so much as it does not infringe on others rights, in this case not being trampled as people panic trying to leave the not on fire theater. Most people find this relatively uncontroversial.

Apply the same logic to the second though, for instance that you have to take a gun safety class before being allowed a fire arm so you don't accidentally shoot someone else and people go bonkers. It's the same logic, an individuals rights are only absolute to the point where they do not trample another's rights. Your right to a gun does not allow you to (accidentally) take the life of another person.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...