Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers? 1

Submitted by theodp
theodp (442580) writes ""The government is not the only American power whose motivations need to be rigourously examined," writes The Telegraph's Katherine Rushton. "Some 2,400 miles away from Washington, in Silicon Valley, Google is aggressively gaining power with little to keep it in check. It has cosied up to governments around the world so effectively that its chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a White House advisor. In Britain, its executives meet with ministers more than almost any other corporation. Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders, but it is up to governments to push back. As things stand, Google — and to a lesser extent, Facebook — are in danger of becoming the architects of the law." Schmidt, by the way, is apparently interested in influencing at least two current hot-button White House issues. Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a "Major Contributor" to Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House's call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers' The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs' agenda are immediately brought down. But that's fiction, right?"

Comment: Be careful what you wish for... (Score 1) 535

by Paleolibertarian (#46157709) Attached to: US Democrats Introduce Bill To Restore Net Neutrality

I have heard numerous arguments for so called "Net Neutrality" over the years but think about it. Do you really want the government forcing telecoms to treat ALL web traffic the same? Would that mean the lowliest customer gets the same bandwidth as the greatest? Just how much do you want to socialize the internet? Sure it seems like a small imposition, just to make sure they open all ports and don't throttle any. But eventually there will be special internet channels that come from the government at higher speed. Just so big-brother's face (or your J. Random Politician) can make sure everyone has unfettered access to official government sources.

Given the antics of the NSA and your favorite monolithic internet company collecting your data, allowing the government even more control over the internet seems a bit foolhardy.

Eventually it will work out so that even in small markets there will be more than one ISP. Pressure from consumers is already putting the brakes on some more monopolistic legislation in Kansas http://tech.slashdot.org/story.... A lot of people now have the choice to go to another ISP if they find some ports being blocked or "shaped" (doublespeak for throttled). When enough people switch, the offending ISP gets the message that they shouldn't be doing that.

If the government forces net neutrality then there will be less need for competition and less competition means worse service in the long run. It's much better in the rodeo than the stockyards.

+ - New Sugar-Based Battery May Have 10 Times Energy Of Lithium

Submitted by cartechboy
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Researchers at Virginia Tech have developed a working sugar-powered fuel cell with energy density greater than current lithium-ion batteries. We know sugar (aka glucose) is a great source of energy in living things — it's energy-dense and easy to process. (Humans produce .75 kilocalories of food energy per gram during aerobic respiration.) This newly-developed battery is similarly productive, with a storage density of 596 amp-hours per kilo — an order of magnitude more than lithium-ion batteries used in consumer tech today. Key issues to solve before this is ready for prime time: Is it stable and consistent? How big of a battery could this power? (gadgets or say, cars?). Lastly, is it a good thing to turn sugar into an energy source? Mass-commercialization of a sugar-based battery could lead to rising food costs."

+ - Government to require vehicle-to-vehicle communication->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "For decades, the focus of auto safety has primarily been on surviving the traumatic impact of crashes through features like air bags and seat belts. But now the focus has shifted to avoiding crashes by developing technology to make future vehicles "smart" enough to detect and respond to threats, such as an oncoming vehicle.

The technology, known as "vehicle-to-vehicle," or "V2V," lets cars "talk" to each other and exchange safety data, such as speed and position. If a nearby car abruptly changes lanes and moves into another car's blind spot, the car would be alerted.

Federal transportation officials did not announce when the new regulations would go into effect but said they hope to propose the new V2V rules before President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:lock front brakes + accelerate (Score 2) 290

by Paleolibertarian (#45644983) Attached to: New Ford Mustang May Have Electronic "Burnout" Button

This used to be called line lock. For 1/4 milers it was a help to get the engine revved up to the torque band while heating the rubber on the tires to get better traction. When the green light comes on you release the brakes and go.

When I was a kid we got tickets for negligent driving if we squealed the tires. The cops will have fun with this.

Comment: Re:good riddance (Score 1) 146

by Paleolibertarian (#45623849) Attached to: After FDA Objections, 23andMe Won't Offer Health Information

Perhaps this is why the FDA put the kabosh on it. I am for the free market but providing misleading or wrong interpretation is not a good thing. Since they'll be providing the raw data perhaps a market for a better analysis will spring up. Hopefully in another country beyond the gentle protections of the FDA.

Comment: Re:LESS government, NOT more! (Score 1) 355

AHA! Another product of the government monopoly on education. The Idea that left to themselves vendors would "game the system" to the detriment of the consumer is actually MORE prevalent under government granted monopolies that otherwise. It is up to the consumer to be aware of what he/she is getting for their money. However, people have been lulled into the false belief that the government is the great protector.

Corporations, without the involvement of government via corporate shield laws, tend to be evil because the individual stockholders are shielded from the evil actions of the corporation. Without this shielding, every owner would be liable for the wrongdoing and would take steps to prevent the evil. Corporations are inherently inhuman because, by law, a corporation is a "person" and that person is only entity liable for damages cause by the actions of the corporation. Only in cases of clear criminality can individuals be held liable while the stockholders have no liability at all.

You should pull your head out of the governments collective ass and learn how things work in the real world before you spout more of the drivel in your post.

Edwin

Comment: LESS government, NOT more! (Score 1, Insightful) 355

Hasn't the government caused enough problems with granting monopolies to telecom companies. The whole industry needs to be totally deregulated. With deregulation comes competition and with competition comes better service and lower prices. The total over-regulation of telecom is the reason we have such lackluster service and higher costs. Telecom companies who have limited competition don't fear raising prices and don't need to improve service in order to attract new customers. Costs to business can be prohibitive. I still have clients that are still using ADSL (1.5 down and .5 up) because that's all they can get and that costs about $60/mo. Another has cable at 5/1 for $80/mo in a second office while the home office has decent cable from a different provider gets 50/4 which costs $200/mo and runs a VPN link between offices which is almost useless but at least they can get Terminal Services in the satellite office but the users complain a lot. Their only other choice is ADSL from AT&T which in a small town is only good for some light surfing and email assuming you have a lot of time.

Because governments limit the choices and regulate prices in a lot of cases we have crappy service. Can you imagine what it would be like if internet service were socialized? This country is already bankrupt. Can you imagine what a cluster f**k ObamaNet would be like? How about in Detroit?

Are you for real? Give me a break!

Remember, any government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take it all away!

Edwin

Comment: Anyone remember the KIM-1 (Score 1) 587

by Paleolibertarian (#44337247) Attached to: Compared to my 1st computer's memory ...

Before I got my IMSAI (used) i had a KIM-1 which had 4 KB of ram on a 6502 microprocessor, a hex keypad and a 4 digit 7-segment numeric display. The built in ROM bios on the board could create some funky hex letters to make it show HEX.

Spent a lot of time playing Hunt the Wumpus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIM-1

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Working...