Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Underlying cause? (Score 1) 360

Well, I didn't actually say anything about Senator McCarthy. It is true that there were communist infiltrators, and it is true that the Rosenbergs were guilty. I'm talking about J. Edgar Hoover, who had secret files on pretty much every person in power in America. Like that dangerous communist, John F. Kennedy, for example, who knew not to mess with J. Edgar because J. Edgar could prove that Jack was bedding two or three different women a week. How many current politicians know not to mess with the NSA, because they know the NSA could scuttle their careers?

Comment: Re:Know your history (Score 1) 360

Unfortunately, when it happens, the good things about the USA will fall with it. I admit, I enjoy being in a place where I can live on a nice suburban street with minimal immediate worries, drive a comfortable car with air conditioning, gas it up when necessary, and purchase as much food as I need at the grocery store whenever I need it. When the house of cards comes tumbling down, the WHOLE house of cards will come with it. Of course, our runaway spending will probably topple it before the iron fist of the NSA. But when it does happen, it will hardly matter what the most immediate exciting cause was.

Comment: Re:Know your history (Score 1) 360

One YEAR. The exact same trend is continuing. No one of power is fighting this. No one is backing down.

No one, or almost no one, gets that high in the political machine without having some serious skeletons in the closet. And who knows where all those skeletons are hidden? Oh, yeah. The NSA. QED

Comment: Re:Underlying cause? (Score 3, Insightful) 360

So - all in all, the tremendous snooping effort is not showing much result and essentially being a flop.

I don't know about that. I'm sure it's been about as successful as J. Edgar Hoover's mid-century communism witch hunts, which had more to do with propping up Hoover's own personal empire than with catching communists.

Comment: Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (Score 1) 238

by Zordak (#47371931) Attached to: Following EU Ruling, BBC Article Excluded From Google Searches

On one hand you have a guy who got in a bar fight when he was in college. Some drunk idiot spills beer on his girlfriend, so he confronts drunk idiot and beats him down, then gets charged with assault. On the other hand, you have this piece of shit (Stan O'Neil).

Perhaps the answer is to remember that "information wants to be free," and therefore it's a bad idea to beat up some random guy because he spilled beer on your girlfriend if that's not the kind of reputation you want to have. In the meantime, other people can consider whether this 20-year-old assault charge is or is not relevant to their particular circumstances. If I'm looking to hire somebody where overall emotional sobriety and self control are important, I'd at least want to find out if he'd cooled his temper in the past 20 years. If I'm interested in the guy's credit before I complete a financial transaction with him, I couldn't care less about his 20 year old assault charge.

Comment: Re:Liability (Score 1) 474

How does it make any sense for Comcast to charge your for extra bandwidth that somebody used on their public WiFi network, not logged in as you? This may be a terrible idea, but not for that reason. Comcast is just using existing equipment to do something other than sit idle. This doesn't seem that nefarious to me. (I'm sure they'll try to prove me wrong later, but for now anyway).

Comment: Re:Liability (Score 3, Insightful) 474

Comcast will be just as liable as they are now. This is not Comcast giving people access to your private network. For this to be even technologically feasible, it's going to have to be configured so that every router broadcasts the same SSID. That means it's going to be a separate virtual network from your home network. So some random guy is not going to be able to log onto your shared folders and print to your printer. If somebody downloads porn, it's going to show that it was some user (with a username and login) that logged into the public Comcast network, and happened to do it from your router. (But more than usual, see my .sig)

Comment: Re: Liability (Score 4, Informative) 474

That's not true at all, and is a bad analogy. You own your house. If the bank has a mortgage, then they have a lien on the house. If they want to take possession of it, they have to go through a foreclosure proceeding. They can't just walk into your living room and start watching TV. Your house is real property, which has lots of strong protections. Comcast, on the other hand, does own the router that they lease to you, which is a chattel and therefore subject to a different set of rights. No, they can't walk in and just take it (that would violate your real property rights). But they do own the network, and if their contract with you is written in a way that permits them to reconfigure a leased router to grant somebody else access to their network over wireless signals that you're leaking out into the air anyway, then yeah, they can do that.

Comment: Re:This would actually be kinda good if true (Score 1) 245

by Zordak (#47204553) Attached to: NSA's Novel Claim: Our Systems Are Too Complex To Obey the Law
You act like it's some crazy notion that people in government would covertly collect information on private citizens for purposes of blackmail to "keep them in line"---not because those citizens are breaking any law, but because certain officials deem them to be dangerous to their own personal agendas and power structure. Have you ever heard of a guy named J. Edgar Hoover? Perhaps you should look into that.

If this is timesharing, give me my share right now.

Working...