Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What a load of FUD! (Score 1) 150

by Fringe (#47606019) Attached to: Synolocker 0-Day Ransomware Puts NAS Files At Risk

That's not entirely fair. That's still a pretty recent version - if you purchase from Amazon or NewEgg you have a good bet of getting it even on an x14 model, and certainly will get that or older on any other model - and there's no "Automatic Update" mechanism on Synology systems. Plus they're essentially storage appliances; users aren't expected to log into and manage them frequently. And the feature that seems to put people at risk is a selling point of the device.

I'm not bashing Synology; I have two Syns running in my system (both current, both firewalled, neither has the rumored susceptible port open, neither infected.) But you're not spending enough time around regular people if you think people expect to be logging into the admin screen of their external hard drive - or their fridge, toaster oven or coffee maker - frequently to check for updates. ;)

Comment: Farmers may not trust the researchers. (Score -1) 567

by Fringe (#47344835) Attached to: Swedish Farmers Have Doubts About Climatologists and Climate Change
She starts with claiming the researchers are almost unanimous. That's simply not true; more accurately, any who are not in agreement are drummed out of the committees. It's a selection problem, a bit like asking an lgbt studies group whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture. The farmers, though, play the long game. They see political fads come and go. If their families have been on these plots for just two centuries, they've seen parts of the Little Ice Age, the recovery from that and the Global Cooling hysteria of the late 1970s-early 1980s. If the researchers are wrong, they write follow-up papers and continue with their careers. But if the farmers make bad decisions, they lose their livelihoods and the historical homestead. The researchers may be right, but the farmers have more at stake and have a better long-term success rate.

Comment: Re:It's only "settled" in the minds of zealots... (Score 0) 661

I'm really sick of people who use attack words constantly, as you are, and yet don't pay any attention to the content.

I suspect I far out-credential you on both science and climate studies, but the internet has no respect for that.  To that degree, I would agree with your objection to the rejection of expertise, but I take it a step further than you... I don't consider many of the "experts" experts because they aren't - they are preachers.  To be an expert, you have to have studied the alternatives, gone into the lions den, and be able to defend your hypothesis rather than shouting down what you consider unbelievers.  But the alarmists have a history of treating it as a religion.

Your inability to discuss this civilly suggests you have the same problem.  All these invectives and so little content.  Bravo for you!

Comment: It's only "settled" in the minds of zealots... (Score 0) 661

Wyoming may not be "politically correct" on the issue, but they are correct that "global warming" being caused primarily by man-made emissions isn't settled science. (And no, computer scientists are not the correct scientists. ;) )

Regardless of local effects, the basic problem is that we should be warming right now, and we aren't.

Why should we be warming right now? The Medieval Warm Period (950-1250) was much warmer than the period that followed - and warmer than now. Wine grape grew in England back then. This was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850). These are considered cyclical, so we should be getting warmer for a few hundred years, starting around 1950. Regardless of human-sourced emissions.

But the other problem is, we're not really, at least not on the activists' schedules. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concedes for the first time that global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite a 7 percent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Despite global human CO2 emissions in the last 15 years representing about one-third of all human CO2 emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, temperatures didn’t budge.

If man-made global warming is your religion, it looks like settled science despite the actual results. If science is your religion (rather than your credential), there's no enough evidence to support the hysteria yet, and a growing amount calling it into question. So why should it be considered "fact" in a kid's textbook? Are we trying to teach them to think or are we trying to indoctrinate them?

Comment: Re:Funding (Score 4, Insightful) 664

by Fringe (#46914183) Attached to: Death Wish Meets GPS: iPhone Theft Victims Confronting Perps

No, it really comes down to risk and reward. Not funding. Cops are widely believed (there are some naysayers) to get promotions and plumb assignments based on ticket revenue. Recovering stolen items involves getting a warrant - they can't just go to the house - and then risking being shot at or accused of racism. What's the up-side?

Better law enforcement would come from using the same tools those capitalists you revile used to get the riches you covet... merit rewards rather than union protection.

Comment: Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score 2) 1374

by Fringe (#46898713) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

No, not ignore them. Just battle their attempts towards goals we disagree with even before they get to the ballot box.

Your initial statement, summarized, was that 2nd Amendment supporters shouldn't worry about devices that almost certainly would lead weak politicians to pander by endorsing and then requiring... until the ballot box time of supporting those politicians. My rebuttal is that if you don't respond when you see the danger coming, beating it back later is far harder. Just as anti-freedom gun-ban advocates see no "legitimate" use for a gun, Constitution-supporters may see no "legitimate" use for a technology that provides a clear path to the NSA disabling all the guns.

Comment: Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score 1, Flamebait) 1374

by Fringe (#46893729) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

Completely wrong. Fight it. With everything you've got. Because otherwise gun-hating pacifists will soon force only those "safe" (meaning non-functioning) guns to be legal.

Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun? Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?

Comment: Re:IMPOSSIBLE (Score 1) 220

by Fringe (#46794693) Attached to: California Utility May Replace IT Workers with H-1B Workers
If you're going to bring politics into a conversation, at least get it right. It's the Democrats that have been pushing the big H-1B increased. e.g. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9242917/House_Democrats_push_ahead_on_immigration_H_1B/

I suspect this is because the Democrats get most of the tech (Google, Microsoft, etc.) donations. But just because you're socially liberally (presumably, given your post and bias) doesn't mean you have to believe the Democrats never do wrong. Everybody does wrong at times.

Comment: Re:First amendment only applies to our friends (Score 2) 824

by Fringe (#46598843) Attached to: Some Mozilla Employees Demand New CEO Step Down

It's not a "right" in the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. Just because you are intolerant of dissenting views doesn't mean you should co-opt the language and use bombastic terms. Or is the left emulating Rush Limbaugh now?

(And no, I'm not against gay marriage. I came out for it, in a Catholic magazine, probably 22 years ago, as a way to finally force a separation of Church and state. Your religious (or pagan or whatever) marriage should have no relationship to your taxes.)

Comment: Disruption works when evolution fails. (Score 4, Informative) 381

by Fringe (#46499999) Attached to: <em>Sons of Anarchy</em> Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

The problem is Disney. The last Copyright Extension Act increased copyrights to 120 years. The original U.S. copyright length, in the Copyright Act of 1790, was for 14 years with the potential for one renewal for another 14, and only if the author was still alive.

Corporations have taken over copyright, and it's not currently fixable due to their power. We can destroy copyright and then rebuild more easily than we can wrestle the monied interests into compromise.

Google is a problem for both sides, but that isn't a bad thing... having two enemies duke it out, weakening each other without impacting you, is a good thing.

Comment: Re:Which shows that people don't understand (Score 2) 846

by Fringe (#46014267) Attached to: Global-Warming Skepticism Hits 6-Year High

You probably didn't participate in them, mbone. Because I did, and I remember the beginning of the 1980s was about Global Cooling. People were freaked out about it, but without the megaphone of the internet. It was magazines and newspapers.

There was a benefit to the paper media... a higher effort to learn and a higher effort to be heard resulted in less panic. Not so many charlatans (on either side) but also not so many zealots trying to control the conversation. And there was more of an understanding of the difference between "theory" and "settled science"; we were (and still are) learning rather fundamental things about the world, and we used to require that any theory (or fact) be not only supported by evidence but provable... which meant you could propose future observations or experiments that, if violated, would refuse the theory. There was more discipline, again probably because of the higher efforts involved to say (or read) anything at all.

It's not the "non-believers" that have been marginalized. It's the entire scientific method and discussion. Regardless of the reality of global warming, the process has been crippled.

Comment: Non-trivial was always cross-language (Score 1) 286

by Fringe (#45594601) Attached to: The Challenge of Cross-Language Interoperability

I get annoyed when the premise is so flawed, but stated as fact.

Major projects have been cross-language for decades. In the 70s, Fortran + C + Assembly were in most big languages. Or large systems using COBOL having to interface to non-COBOL systems. By the 80s, many had bits of Pascal (Borland was huge, remember?) and BASIC, with important routines hand-optimized in assembly. Or C. By the 90s, we had SQL and native code, DLLs written in random languages, and often VB for the UI. Most of what you use on a daily basis probably is browser-hosted but includes active controls in C# or C++, back end code in PHP or Java, database code in SQL and browser code in JavaScript or ActionScript. Many of my Android apps are mostly Java with some kernel-level support in C.

Yes, each language has it's own way... COM, exports, dllimport, etc. Until it has one, it's not a very functional language. But this isn't a new development.

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Working...