Forgot your password?

Comment: These laws are hard to grasp (Score 4, Insightful) 331

by MetalliQaZ (#48188519) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Let's do a thought experiment. Start with a blank piece of paper and some colored pencils. A person begins drawing a picture. The page begins as a completely meaningless object, and as marks are made on the page, it gains meaning gradually. A line on paper is not illegal, or at least it shouldn't be by any moral or ethical standard. Two lines, three lines, and so on. Each are probably completely innocent individually. If these scribbles were forming letters and words, they would be clearly protected expression, until they formed some kind of credible threat. At least, that's how I understand it.

But this isn't a written message, just a picture. A head takes shape. Eyes, nose, mouth, and hair. The subject starts to emerge. Still this is a legal drawing by any measure. Eventually enough marks are made on the page that the subject has context. Clothes, background... and actions. At some point the scene depicted by this collection of lines and smudges becomes forbidden. What was an figment of someone's imagination is now a very real crime.

How does that happen, and when? Who specifically does this law protect? Is the person who drew it a criminal, or is it only a crime when someone buys it? Is every viewer of the picture a criminal or just the ones who enjoy it? How do you tell which is which? What about the imagination that spawned the picture? Would the artist have been a criminal if they hadn't put their mental image to paper? I find these questions very difficult to answer in a way that makes sense for a society. Every seemingly obvious answer can lead to some very harmful laws.

But the main motivation is one of greater public good. A scribble that harms nobody is made illegal because by locking up the people who like the scribbles, they cannot remain free to eventually harm real people in the same way. It's a noble cause and perhaps an effective law (I have not seen proof one way or the other). However it is also disturbingly close to pre-crime. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

Comment: Nothing on the underlying technology? (Score 4, Informative) 67

by MetalliQaZ (#48153545) Attached to: Mozilla Teams Up With Humble Bundle To Offer Eight Plugin-Free Games

asm.js is the underlying technology they used to port the games to the web. According to Wikipedia, "asm.js is an intermediate programming language consisting of a strict subset of the JavaScript language. It enables significant performance improvements for web applications that are written in statically-typed languages with manual memory management (such as C) and then translated to JavaScript by a source-to-source compiler."

Comment: Re:Blue LED should've never been awarded. (Score 1) 276

by MetalliQaZ (#48103675) Attached to: No Nobel For Nick Holonyak Jr, Father of the LED

I'm not sure how you can diminish the achievement of someone's invention because other people use it in a way that may not be appropriate. Should the graphene guys not be honored because their invention could be used irresponsibly? (yes, I'm aware of Nobel and his explosives)

Having said that, the Nobel committee did seem to consider the importance of LED lighting, so there's that. Still, I'd think that any danger to eyes could be eliminated with a proper design.

Comment: Re:ffs (Score 1) 276

by MetalliQaZ (#48103375) Attached to: No Nobel For Nick Holonyak Jr, Father of the LED

Wow they should be lit on fire.

Blue LEDs deserve only one award: Worst fucking idea ever. Here, let's put this HORRIBLY annoying and bright shit on car headlights. What could possibly go wrong?

Dude needs to go take their nobel because its his.

You're a fool. You have issues with certain design choices that you blame on the blue LED? To use a car analogy, that's like blaming Toyota's braking issues on the invention of disc brakes. Disc brakes are a good thing, like blue LEDs. You like Blu-rays? Then you're using this technology.

+ - Verizon Wireless caves to FCC pressure, says it won't throttle 4G users

Submitted by MetalliQaZ
MetalliQaZ (539913) writes "Verizon Wireless was scheduled to begin throttling certain LTE users today as part of an expanded "network optimization" program, but has decided not to follow through with the controversial plan after criticism from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler. All major carriers throttle certain users when cell sites get too congested, but Wheeler and consumer advocates objected to how carriers choose which customers to throttle. The fact that Verizon was throttling only unlimited data users showed that it was trying to boost its profits rather than implementing a reasonable network management strategy, Wheeler said."

Comment: Re:Quarantine? (Score 1) 475

by MetalliQaZ (#48031009) Attached to: Ebola Has Made It To the United States

No it wouldn't. Public health is the most slam-dunk reason to restrict civil liberties. Travel is restricted for much less important reasons, like politics. You have your rights restricted to possess anthrax, even in your own home. A quarantine could prevent travel to West Africa, if it was shown to be a hazard to public health.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken