Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: "CipherShed" (Score 1) 234

by bill_mcgonigle (#47951109) Attached to: TrueCrypt Gets a New Life, New Name

but in this case the authors were anonymous - they are NOT going to de-cloak to enforce a trademark.

It's probably better for the security of the community at large to carry on calling it TrueCrypt (3.0, clear who the new team is, etc.). Trademarks exist to prevent confusion - in this case, using the same name is the minimally confusing option. The license is unenforceable and securing people's communications is more important to society than the wishes of the retired authors.

Imaginary property ain't real but the risks of electronic adversaries certainly are.

Comment: Re:In the woods? (Score 1) 166

by bill_mcgonigle (#47946959) Attached to: The Minecraft Parent

How about trying *actually" being in the woods with your friends?

Right. My kids visited with some family friends, and their kids play Minecraft 3-4 hours a day.

I guess it's entertaining, and they do neat stuff _in_ Minecraft, but it'll all illusory.

When they came home they asked me if we could get Minecraft. I told them, "of course not - go outside and build a treehouse. Get some sunshine while you're at it".

Minecraft is conditioning the factory workers of tomorrow. If we're to build a digidystopia, at least my kids can be running the thing. :/

Comment: Re:confused (Score 2) 327

it shows that neither know what they are talking about

no kidding - you could make a drinking game about how many elements of this story sound like they're from 2002.

The industry already settled on mp3, sans DRM. The market is not demanding anything Apple is offering.

And Bono can keep on trying to make sure poor African kids can never listen to his music (they'll never pay two days' wages for his post-Zooropa music). It's just sad that he pretends to care otherwise.

Comment: Re:In before... (Score 1) 312

by bill_mcgonigle (#47940215) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

Can we quibble about the statistical method to use after we've settled the basic cause and effect relationships? Here's the retired TED talk: Religions and Babies.

I think the title is supposed to be provocative but I find it has the opposite effect (two things young men don't want to talk about...) - it's really about assumptions underling the modeling of world population.

Comment: Re: Translation... (Score 1) 198

by bill_mcgonigle (#47918467) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Fascism - aren't you paying attention? Since when is SpaceX selling weaponry - their brand of non-violent commercialism is harmful to the health of the State.

If I were Musk, I'd put up my own space station, if this goes to Boeing. I bet one with rotatational gravity and a zero-G hub is now feasible and commercially desireable. The hub can be arbitrarily long as long as the habitat area is decent for humans, lots of work can get done at the best cost and the zero-G area can be expanded modularly.

Comment: Re:A solution in search of a problem... (Score 3, Interesting) 326

It is a lot like driving with one hand verses two at the ten and two positions. Many people can safely drive with one hand but it is safer to be in the ten and two positions with two hands which is why we need to do it to pass most driving tests.

In theory (one, anyway) 10 and 2 are the best positions, so DMV examiners have been insisting on it.

In reality, it turns out, 9:30 and 3:30 are safer.

In theory, talking on the phone is distracting.

In reality, it's been shown that drivers who are a little bit tired are much safer if they're also talking.

In theory, texing bans will reduce traffic accidents.

In reality, people in those States text below the steering wheel, completely taking their eyes off the road, to avoid cops seeing then, while those in States without such bans tend to text with the phone at the top of the steering wheel, so they can at least keep half an eye on the road. Paradoxically, texting bans are deadly.

Tibbit's "solutions" work in theory, but reality is far more messy. To assume otherwise is hubristic.

Comment: Re:And.... (Score 1) 34

I hadn't heard of it, and I have been an Amazon Prime member for a few years...

Same here, which means they never advertised it on their own site, which means they didn't want it to succeed for some reason.

Lord knows they've have no problem advertising the Fire Phone or various Kindles over the years.

Comment: Re:define "customer" (Score 1) 290

by bill_mcgonigle (#47894455) Attached to: German Court: Google Must Stop Ignoring Customer E-mails

"Describes the rules you agree to when using our services." Most sites have something like this, and they all start out with "By using this site you agree to..."

And they're all bullshit, like any one-party contract. There has to be an offer, consideration, and acceptance at a minimum.

An "I agree" button _might_ be enough to make that legal, but if somebody has never read those terms they are certainly not bound by them. Google could very easily make somebody sign in to use their service, but they choose to make it completely open instead.

Comment: Re:As a private citizen (Score 1) 213

by bill_mcgonigle (#47894423) Attached to: Congress Can't Make Asteroid Mining Legal (But It's Trying, Anyway)

Technically, no.
You are bound by the treaties your country signed.

You mean mean, 'in theory', not 'technically'. If the local jurisdiction does not enforce the laws, then on a technical basis you are not bound by them. On a theoretical basis you may be, but who cares.

That's the law. That you choose to be a space pirate, is your own problem.

You can't take the sky from me!

Comment: Re:Now Be Very Careful (Score 1) 81

And watch settlement-free peering die quickly too as the monster ISP's declare war on the remaining independents, backed by the FCC (which __DUH__ is in their pockets already). If this happens the monster ISP's will write the new regulations behind closed doors and it'll be strongly in their favor to preferentially comply.

98% of the people who are writing these letters don't even know what the terms that are in play mean, much less are they able to understand the consequences.

I guess that's normal for a democracy - it just hits home when they're coming after your field of work.

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.