Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Every single transaction is broadcast to the wo (Score 2) 105

by Em Adespoton (#48471053) Attached to: Bitcoin Is Not Anonymous After All

It's even simpler than that... the IPs are in a limited pool, and are used for all your network transactions during the period. All there needs to be is an IP correlation between the transaction and that check of your GMail account during the same time period, and the IP links the two, flagging who you are. No need to track back through the ISP who was supposed to have that IP at that time (although that's trivial with a warrant too).

Comment: Re:when dirty? (Score 1) 167

by Em Adespoton (#48470907) Attached to: Jackie Chan Discs Help Boost Solar Panel Efficiency

The data density in bluray means that the pits are far, far, far, far too small for dirt to get stuck in, or on. Think of it like placing a pebble on a beach. There are pits between sand grains but the size disparity means it acts like a flat surface for most intents and purposes.

Not only this, but presumably the pits can be under the glass, just as they are under polycarbonate on a disc. Then the pits are not exposed to dir, and a normal washing will remove surface dust, bird poop, etc.

Which raises the question: Why did they use a Jackie Chan disc instead of a Brad Pitt disc?

Comment: Re:Recognize the crisis in US Big Pharma... (Score 1) 68

by Em Adespoton (#48470899) Attached to: Canada's Ebola Vaccine Nets Millions For Tiny US Biotech Firm

Indeed -- the main cost is actually in all the testing, not in the conceptual (or actual) development -- this is where I started with my comment.

In this case however, there was no testing done that I can see; instead of putting the money into testing it, they sat on it until they could sell it to Merck -- who bought it for significantly more than it would have cost to test.

They weren't handed the equivalent of a concept drawing -- it was more like they were handed a concept car plus the facility to fabricate it, and then had to get the certifications done and ramp up production. Instead, they sat on it and re-sold to a larger manufacturer when it became lucrative.

I don't know about you, but I don't want my health bought and sold the same way my car is.

The MessagePad/iPad thing is an interesting angle, but completely outside the discussion: having been around during the development of both, I can guarantee you the MessagePad was much harder to bring to market, and much more expensive, with a smaller market to capture. The iPad of course has much higher rights to market, due to the significantly larger market (and cheaper R&D/testing, comparatively). And this is what we saw here: when Merck saw that the market for an Ebola vaccine had suddenly blossomed, they were willing to throw money at it due to the anticipated ability to corner the larger market, or at least get a significant leg up on the competition. I presume the idea is that they paid more than it would have cost for the small firm to do the testing/certification/production themselves, to make it worth their while to sell.

Comment: Re:Recognize the crisis in US Big Pharma... (Score 1) 68

by Em Adespoton (#48468035) Attached to: Canada's Ebola Vaccine Nets Millions For Tiny US Biotech Firm

Free market indeed, it's funny when the market is far freer in a politically communist nation

China has a huge number of trade barriers, including price caps on pharmaceuticals. The other half of the "free(er) market" you're describing is a failure to enforce IP rights (or, possibly, failure by companies to file the relevant patent applications in China, but that seems unlikely), so that pharma companies are having to compete with generic products that would be illegal in the US. You can applaud this if you like, but it's not generally considered a good environment for inventing new drugs.

That's the point people generally make -- but look at the context of the article you're commenting about -- the drug in this case was invented in Canada, paid for by Canadian taxpayers, and then rights were sold pretty much at-cost to a US company to test and develop it -- and they didn't. Now they've given it a 25x markup and sold those rights off to Merck (which is against the original contract).

So... which is a better environment for inventing new drugs? The one in which there's an even playing field with generics (meaning the drug actually has to be /new/, not just newly patentable), or the one that fails to invent the new drug because it's not profitable enough, and then buys the rights to develop it from a humanitarian source when it suddenly looks profitable?

Comment: Re:Scrap heap (Score 1) 397

[T]he more the Big Data analytics companies know about you the more they will be able to manipulate you and control your life all for their benefit, not yours.

I disagree -- they don't want to control your life all for their benefit -- they want to sell the analytics to third parties who want to control your life, and they want to sell "access" to third parties to influence your perception of the online world.

This is actually part of the EU argument for the "right to be forgotten" -- and the only part I agree with; the big data analytics companies like Google are already serving up different results based on the user index -- if they're already doing this, then it's only one more step to say "these people are in the EU, and so shouldn't see these results at all (not just rank them lower like they already do).

This all started with Amazon back in the day, when they started showing different deals and adjusting ALL pricing based on your CI profile. Google eventually got in on that, and it now affects pretty much all of their products (even GMail will bubble up different emails based on what they think you'll want to pay most attention to). This could be considered beneficial, but it's naieve to think that you're the only one getting this benefit; it's being sold in reverse-aggregate form to others so that those who pay Google get finely honed access to the customers they think might want the services. Nothing wrong with that either, but I'd rather not take part unless I choose to (as opposed to being shown the altered world view as my default browsing experience).

As a result, I use Google Search now when I want something targeting me, and ddg/yahoo when I want to search for something specific, as Google's got really good at pushing what it thinks I'd prefer rather than what I want. It gets this data through GMail, Chrome, GoogDNS, GooglePlus, etc. I usually use Youtube as an indicator of how well they're tracking my current browser, and when things start to skew too much, I blow away all my cookies, flash bugs, etc. and renew my DHCP lease. Usually takes a couple of months.

Comment: Re:Not all spooks are bad (Score 1) 110

by Em Adespoton (#48460245) Attached to: Top NSA Official Raised Alarm About Metadata Program In 2009

It's fine that you agree, but what about everybody else? If I stop posting then much of what's left on varous topics will be bad arguments and non-factual "facts." Nobody should want that, it doesn't help anybody. I'll keep posting to benefit everybody else even if you agree with me.

Usually CF and I come down on opposite sides of arguments to do with US government overreach, but I completely agree with him on this point. Using blanket statements and emotion-based arguments does nothing to prove a point, and both he and I have called that out on this thread.

So, like him and Chris453, I'd like some further explanation as to why the US isn't evil, but the NSA, which is a US government organization, IS evil? It seems to me that either US citizens should disband it if they feel it's evil, or they should get rid of the parts that are evil and keep the good parts, or they should leave their country if they feel it is evil and not providing them the power to excise the evil parts. Or, of course, topple the entire government.

Living in a country, complaining that its signals branch of the government is evil, and then doing nothing else about it but complacently reaping the benefits of the "evil" government's actions seems just as evil (or at least hypocritical) in my view. "Because they're evil!" is the sort of reasoning that lends itself more to fascist regimes than to true democratic republics.

Comment: Re:Scrap heap (Score 1) 397

NotScripts is the NoScripts equivalent in Chrome and it works pretty well.

That said, if NoScript starts working on Chrome, I'd likely switch eventually -- and no, NoScripts isn't a real replacement.

NotScripts works well for what it does, but all it does is toggle scripts on/off. NoScript does a LOT more, providing an XSS jail, among other things.

Comment: Re:Not all spooks are bad (Score 1) 110

by Em Adespoton (#48437951) Attached to: Top NSA Official Raised Alarm About Metadata Program In 2009

By that logic, I can extend your argument to "All Americans are bad dudes" because they have done nothing to rein in the US Military complex, US IP complex, US entertainment complex and US meddling in foreign politics, not to mention the doubletalk used in dealing with the US itself.

Don't demonize others for not doing things you haven't done yourself, nor make them guilty by association, unless you're willing to be called out as similarly guilty.

Comment: Re:My two cents (Score 1) 365

Yes, I'm pretty sure you could engineer the climate for Sudan without negatively affecting Ethiopia. Of course, the means of doing that is probably via land reclamation techniques, but that's really true for pretty much any major climate improvement at this point in our planet's life.

Comment: Re:I prefer this rewrite (Score 1) 555

by Em Adespoton (#48427095) Attached to: "Barbie: I Can Be a Computer Engineer" Pulled From Amazon

Well, at least it'd be realistic. Although the comment about "boys can like pink" was a bit over the top -- things like that go over better when they're not pointed out. I read it and thought: "Is there something wrong with liking pink?"

Now what we need is a "Neckbeard Barbie" -- but I don't think Mattel would ever go there.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn