Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Oddballs... (Score 4, Informative) 45

by Kuberz (#47473585) Attached to: Fossils of Cambrian Predator Preserved With Brain Impressions

When it comes to weird shit that exists... Tardigrades take the cake.

They can live 10 years without any type of sustenance, can withstand more pressure than exists in the deepest oceans, can be boiled, frozen, blasted with radiation, even thrown in space, and still survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Comment: Re:This will die in the senate (Score 1) 148

by Kuberz (#47473549) Attached to: US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes

Social Security was actually established as a temporary measure during the Great Depression. It was created for retirees during the Great Depression because they had no money and needed to survive (this was when the poverty rate for retirees was over 50%). It was built as a temporary solution.

You can argue about this all day long, but go look at the history. The Federal Government basically saw it as an additional revenue stream for all their programs. Sure they toted it as something else. But if they truly saw it for what they claimed, they wouldn't be spending it, they would be investing it so as to maximize the amount of money retirees receive.

Comment: Re:This will die in the senate (Score 2) 148

by Kuberz (#47473517) Attached to: US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes

According to SSA, once you make it to 65 (which is when many chose to retire), your chances of making it past 80 go wayyyyy up!!!!

http://www.ssa.gov/planners/li...

I use to work in life insurance, trust me, your facts are wrong. Social Security is not fine. It needs much more than a minor change. This is due to Social Security being dumped into congresses budget. Meaning when the government gets all the Social Security tax money in, it pays out what it needs to, and then takes the rest and spends it. Even if they made changes now (which will not happen), it would make little difference.

Once you take into account labor force numbers, and then take into account baby boomer numbers... I'm sorry your just wrong. I mean your basically doing elementary school math and expecting to solve a college level problem.

And how anyone could support this BS program is beyond me. Basically, it's Uncle Tom saying "hey if you give me % of every paycheck, when you retire I promise I'll give it back". You would get way more money (and I do mean way more) if you put that money in 1 of any of the other retirement programs that have been established. Social Security should be optional, or, if people really think you should be forced into a retirement program... At the very least, you should be able to sub your Social Security tax into a separate program.

Comment: Honestly (Score 1, Interesting) 45

by Kuberz (#47427073) Attached to: Apple Gets Its First Batch of iPhone Chips From TSMC

I busted my smartphone screen about a year ago (The Motorola Droid Razr XT912). I ordered a new screen, and while I waited for my new screen replacement I reactivated my old Blackberry Bold World Tour (I think it was the 8950? Could be wrong).

I actually enjoyed going back to my blackberry for a few weeks, it has a lot of glitches, and it only has 3g support, so it caused a few headaches. But I use my phone as a phone, so the fact that it could call, text, and do my e-mail was plenty for me. I don't ever use the camera, I don't use any apps except a web browser and Pandora. And honestly, I still love the way blackberry handled email and text. I still miss Viigo, which in my mind, is the single greatest app of all time (Blackberry bought it, and ruined it /sigh).

I have a lot of friends that have the latest and greatest, but honestly they are just fanboys. They show me all these "new" features that are "soooo revolutionary" and I couldn't be more turned off. I will never by a phone with a fingerprint scanner, I see that as a security liability. I won't buy a phone that has a higher pixel density than my eyes can even comprehend (it's just wasted power). I won't buy a phone because it has the latest and greatest OS version (that's why I use Cyanogenmod, no bloatware, and all the new features I could want). I won't buy a phone because it has a faster 4G radio, when cell companies have your bandwidth restricted to the point where you'd blow through all your data in a matter of minutes (and restrict your speed after a certain point, even if it's unlimited). I won't buy a phone that I can never truly own, because of a locked bootloader.

Idk how many people out there are like me. But the phone I would buy, is the phone built for the consumer. Not so locked down that the only way I can upgrade or change the OS is with the original manufacturer's permission. A phone built lean, not so crammed with fancy things I don't need it'll cost a few paychecks to replace/repair if I drop it.

But I really see this going more and more in the direction of desktop computing. Where we've started to see the plateau of not technology itself, but the plateau of the technology the average person needs.

If these companies want to keep increasing their bottom line, there needs to be more innovation, and less of increasing performance numbers. I'm no Apple fanboy, but it seems like these companies are just riding out Apple's innovation and then acting surprised that that innovation has a life expectancy.

Maybe Google project Ara is a step in the right direction? Maybe the Amazon phone? Only time will tell.

Comment: Re:Kentos or Sentos? (Score 1) 125

by Kuberz (#47407797) Attached to: CentOS Linux Version 7 Released On x86_64

I saw a video one time where a dev called it sent.aws (so the first part is pronounced like sent, and the last part is pronounced like the OSS as in boss or floss). I have also heard it where the last two letters were pronounced as letters, so sent.OH.ES

Sorry for being cryptic, I'm not versed on proper ways to dictate pronunciations.

Comment: Re:It's time (Score 1) 66

by Kuberz (#47386323) Attached to: Does Google Have Too Much Influence Over K-12 CS Education?

I'm no expert, but I believe this depends heavily on the district. I believe some private schools receive Title I funding, but am unaware of the stipulations for said funding.

But at the end of the day our tax dollars are paying for education. Should we not then have the ability to chose the education those dollars go towards?

Comment: It's time (Score 2, Insightful) 66

by Kuberz (#47385841) Attached to: Does Google Have Too Much Influence Over K-12 CS Education?

It's time schools went to free market.

Right now, as it stands, if you can't afford a private school for your child, your only real option is to put your child into the public indoctrination system. The system run by inefficient bureaucrats.

In my county, it costs an average of $12,000 per year, per child. That's for public education. Our most renowned private school is roughly $8,000 per year in tuition. This private school has a top level education. It is not uncommon for children to be held back when transferring to this school, as they have very high standards.

You want to make sure children get a better education? Let them use the money that is being spent anyway, to send their child to whichever school they chose.

This creates competition in the education system. Competition between schools will inevitably lead to competition between educators. Which will inevitably lead to better educations, and a greater variety of educational courses.

You could then offer grant money to schools with specific programs that met specific criteria (like a school that offers a CS class, that proves through some method, that children are competent to some degree, to meet whatever criteria laid out in the grant).

Or we could dump money into the hands of people that have already have shown they have no idea how to handle it.

Comment: Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score 1, Flamebait) 224

by Kuberz (#47223317) Attached to: Interviews: Bruce Perens Answers Your Questions

Here's the thing: the State has weapons that could reduce you, your house, your neighbourhood, or your city to a smoking ruin. They have people (stronger, faster, and more capable than you), who train daily to kill in the most effective ways, with weapons and equipment that are simply unavailable to you. If they were to take you seriously as a threat, they could locate you in seconds and put a drone through the nearest window.

So owning your very own semi-automatic, or even fully-automatic small arms is completely pointless except, at the very best, to let your corpse serve as a witness to the rest of the world that your State kills its own. Armed resistance can not overcome the enormous imbalance of power that modern states possess.

Resistance is not futile, but armed resistance is. The most effective counter to government encroachment is not to be found in the Cliven Bundys of this world.

go tell that to all those terrorist cells and the vietcong

Comment: Re:Protecting the Weak from the Strong (Score 1) 224

by Kuberz (#47223209) Attached to: Interviews: Bruce Perens Answers Your Questions

Yeah, I just lost all respect for Bruce. I respect your father for fighting in the war, and removing the firing pin was his right. But by sharing that story all you really did is show your prejudice.

You talk about traveling the world... Ok, this is something we both share common ground. The U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than the U.S. Oh, of course we have a different view of violent crime than Britain, but even when you account for that, our violent crime rate is STILL lower.

And on top of that, I live in Virginia.... You know how easy it is to get a gun here? Easier than anywhere else in the world I gauranfuckintee it. Go look at our crime rate, and our murder rate. Want to know why it's so low? Everyone has a gun, regular citizens walk around with guns strapped on. If I wanted another gun, I could go get it today. Want to know why that drops crime? Because the whackjobs are scared to do anything cause literally everyone has guns. Me and my neighbors don't have to wait for cops to show up, we're all locked and loaded and have each other on speed dial.

Comment: Nice (Score 1) 474

As it stands now, many locations still have only one option when it comes to high speed internet (excluding satellite, but that's not really high speed). Comcast is now trying to merge with Time Warner. Talk about one hell of a monopoly.

Now they argue they don't compete in enough markets, but think about it, it's the internet. With a combined merger, they will have a much easier time charging content providers for bandwidth to costumers.

So now you, the customer, are going to be higher premiums for any online services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. Because when these companies have to start shelling out to internet providers, they have to raise their prices in order to stay profitable.

So having these huge open wifi networks seems like a good deal for a consumer, it's actually just a way for these companies to get increased revenue, using the bandwidth you've purchased from them, extending it "freely" to other people, and using this as a way to entice companies such as Netflix to pay them a higher streaming premium.

Basically, and in essence, this is a way for Comcast to extend it's user base without extending it's customer base, to leverage higher bandwidth fees from content providers.

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics

Working...