Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:there was a time in the early 1990s (Score 1) 254

The second amendment recognizes that an armed population is harder to dominate by a central authority. This is as true today as it was then, and just as important. The right to bear arms is not for the purposes of hunting or other recreational activities. It is a check against tyranny. History has shown power to be a corrupting force, so preventing the concentration of power should be the goal of any civilization interested in longevity.

Ending the private ownership of weapons should be considered carefully. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to gain. The loss of this particular freedom would make it considerably easier to lose the rest of them. What safety is worth that cost?

Android

IPv6-Only Is Becoming Viable 209

Posted by timothy
from the ok-but-what's-your-64-bit-phone-number? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "With the success of world IPv6 day in 2011, there is a lot of speculation about IPv6 in 2012. But simply turning on IPv6 does not make the problems of IPv4 exhaustion go away. It is only when services are usable with IPv6-only that the internet can clip the ties to the IPv4 boat anchor. That said, FreeBSD, Windows, and Android are working on IPv6-only capabilities. There are multiple accounts of IPv6-only network deployments. From those, we we now know that IPv6-only is viable in mobile, where over 80% (of a sampling of the top 200 apps) work well with IPv6-only. Mobile especially needs IPv6, since their are only 4 billion IPv4 address and approaching 50 billion mobile devices in the next 8 years. Ironically, the Android test data shows that the apps most likely to fail are peer-to-peer, like Skype. Traversing NAT and relying on broken IPv4 is built into their method of operating. P2P communications was supposed to be one of the key improvements in IPv6."

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 4, Insightful) 891

The purpose of taxes are to pay for the government.

As long as we have any publicly funded health care, then government is paying for the health consequences of smoking. With that in mind, why is it wrong to tax a behavior that increases an individual's societal burden?

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 2, Insightful) 891

Individual behavior that has a societal cost should be fair game for targeted taxes. In many cases I think that allowing someone the freedom to engage in the costly behavior while asking them to compensate society for the privilege is preferable to an outright ban on the behavior.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 1) 135

by Doomdark (#37170018) Attached to: Motorola's Identity Crisis
At least in this case the innovations/patents are for actual hardware rather than mathematical formulas.

Not necessarily. I would think that Motorola is as capable at filing for bogus patents as other companies, and it would be odd if they had only filed for patents on hardware. Especially if and when they saw significant value in their patent portfolio; why wouldn't you file for easiest ones you can get? Surely they have filed for all kinds of patents, including (but not limited to) hardware ones. It would be nice to get a breakdown of types of patents, as well as years they were applied for; it seems that the trend for bogus patents has been increasing... so older patents may be bit less likely to be bs ones.

Comment: Re:Learn who is patent troll and who is not (Score 1) 197

by Doomdark (#35715104) Attached to: Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents
I'd just like to point out its not much of a defense if you don't enforce your ownership at some level.

Usually defensive here means using patent lawsuits in defensive way (against other companies suing you); not so much defending patents themselves. There is no need to defend patents, per se, unless someone is specifically trying to get them invalidated. As in not initiating the court process, but responding.

Comment: Re:obvious but probably not helpful (Score 3, Interesting) 229

by Doomdark (#35643134) Attached to: Java Creator James Gosling Hired At Google
Gosling did a piss poor job on the design and evolution of Java to begin with.

How so? I thought it was generally consider a pretty decent job, and not just due to actual success of the platform and language. While Java has its quirks like any other programming language, it seems pretty well-rounded and practical. Your statement would suggest much more than that, so what exact things back up your statement?

Comment: Re:Google v. Oracle - Solved (Score 1) 229

by Doomdark (#35643100) Attached to: Java Creator James Gosling Hired At Google
I agree in that Gosling's checking of codebase is probably not all that valuable in itself (as he can't really be external objective third-party here), but I think it can have positive effect for credibility of Google's defense. It's not about trying to prevent Oracle from suing, but rather in improving chances of winning, or limiting damages. Gosling is obviously knowledgeable on Java and history, but also about various litigations related to Java.

Comment: Re:Anatomy of the Hack (Score 1) 415

by Doomdark (#35224382) Attached to: Attacked By Anonymous, HBGary Pulls Out of RSA
Thats because the America Revolution wasn't "domestic terrorism".

Many techniques used were in fact labelled as terrorism even back then. And if one uses current de-facto political definitions (as various governments, including some western ones, do), could be construed to be such: guerilla warfare, vandalism, theft, obstruction of legal system...This does not diminish value or righteousness of revolution, just points out dangers of using a label without context; and especially fallacy of equating current laws with moral.

So: given that american colonies were part of English rule, and many activities were criminal (thanks to malevolent laws etc), yes, much of it was technically domestic terrorism. And no, there was nothing wrong with that; due to corruptness of the (legal, political) system of the time.

Comment: Re:Cyber terrorisim (Score 1) 334

by Doomdark (#35223996) Attached to: On Retirement, Israeli General Takes Credit for Stuxnet Attacks
While it is true that underdogs typically use more of dirty tactics (since they have to, for the most part), how does this absolve either side? Two wrongs do not make right; so as wrong and deplorable as it is to use human shields, it is at least as bad to shoot those children. This is what I do not understand, except maybe as indication of mental maturity level of person arguing the case -- it is a kindergarten kid argument ("but he started it!").

Things equal to nothing else are equal to each other.

Working...