Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The sad part here... (Score 1) 117

by tverbeek (#46772255) Attached to: Nokia Had a Production-Ready Web Tablet 13 Years Ago

Was the web on its own interesting enough in 2000 to make this a killer device?

Yes, it was. Were you still wading on CompuServ and Usenet or something at the time? :)

Also, what OS does it run, can it do anything but surf the web?

EPOC could do lots more than surf the web; it had apps for all the obvious personal-assistant functions (calendar, notes, to-do, contacts) and had a decent ecosystem of third-party apps. It powered the Psion PDAs (clamshells with decent thumb keyboards and stylus input), and was head-and-shoulders bettter than PalmOS or WinCE (its contemporaries) in terms of stability and ability to run on low-power hardware. I nursed one of the later Psions along for years after they were discontinued, until the iPhone came along and there was finally another pocket computer worth switching too. The devices' main weakness (other than nonexistent marketing) was the state of mobile connectivity in their day: slow-n-crappy cellular data, hard-to-find local wireless, and dial-up.

Comment: Re:Bad suggestion (Score 1) 990

by squiggleslash (#46768215) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

All those, including the submitter, who argue as if Stevens is arguing that the original amendment meant "members of militias" are missing the point. Stevens is proposing a change to the constitution. He was a judge. He didn't need "clarifications" to be proposed, because the constitution meant what it meant without those clarifications, so he's never going to propose a clarification.

This is about changing the constitution. And yes, it's perfectly fine to propose changes, it's not a perfect document, never will or can be. Whether this particular proposed change is a good idea is open to question, but the notion that the only reason to propose a constitutional amendment is to have it say the same thing it did previously, using different words, is completely absurd. You should know better.

Comment: This confirms my point of view (Score 5, Funny) 39

by squiggleslash (#46766867) Attached to: Mt. Gox Ordered Into Liquidation

Many of my critics have claimed that the closure of Mt. Gox means something I'd prefer not to believe about Bitcoins. But ultimately, I think this proves they're wrong, and that surprisingly this actually confirms what I've been saying all along.

Sure, my view has its detractors. But they're not basing their viewpoint on calm, reasoned, objective criteria mixed with a bigger vision of how the world works and the economics of Bitcoins vs the economics of normal currencies. They're simply mixing some observations with their own prejudiced view of economics, and coming to the opposite conclusion.

I think, in the end, you'll find I'm right about Bitcoins and that my view is confirmed by the closure of Mt. Gox. It may not be the view you have, but it is the right one.

(C) All Bitcoin advocates/skeptics, 2014

Comment: Re:Not arrested (Score 1) 617

by geminidomino (#46766253) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Bollocks. He quit to get himself out of the public eye before he was arrested, and our scumbags do the same thing all the time. My own district "representative" just quit after being busted for coke.

I don't care what country you're in: if they were capable of feeling "shame," they wouldn't be in politics.

Comment: Ted Unangst's article (Score 4, Informative) 278

by grub (#46758065) Attached to: OpenBSD Team Cleaning Up OpenSSL

Ted Unangst wrote a good article called "analysis of openssl freelist reuse"

His analysis:

This bug would have been utterly trivial to detect when introduced had the OpenSSL developers bothered testing with a normal malloc (not even a security focused malloc, just one that frees memory every now and again). Instead, it lay dormant for years until I went looking for a way to disable their Heartbleed accelerating custom allocator.

it's a very good read.

Comment: Re:Ukraine's borders were changed by use of force (Score 3, Interesting) 262

by squiggleslash (#46757583) Attached to: Is Crimea In Russia? Internet Companies Have Different Answers

The American Civil War was not a war over slavery. It was a war over Federal vs. State control

It really was about slavery. The notion the South were just concerned about Fed being "too powerful" and being likely to "force" them to do things they didn't want to do over them kinda ignores the fact that whole Fugitive Slave thing, where the South was using the Federal government to force the North to do things they didn't want to do, and the Federal government turned out not to be powerful enough to do it.

And it was the complete failure of the Fugitive Slave acts, and the fact that the whole free trade/movement thing meant that without such a law, the South would be competely unable to deal with escaping slaves, that created the actual triggers for the creation of the Confederacy.

States Rights? There's a stronger argument that the North was fighting for those over the South. After failing to work within the system to force the North to do things they found completely abhorent, the South wanted to bypass the constitution completely by declaring independence and using its economic and military might instead. The North even limited its response to a silent "WTF" until the South fired first. The rest is history.

Comment: Re:Marginal costs (Score 1) 20

by squiggleslash (#46755969) Attached to: REPOST: Brandon Eich

I have children. I would say it's not a legitimate gripe of the alternative marriage crowd, and not because I benefit... (Also I've never heard it associated with the alternative marriage crowd, just a small group of people who don't want children, whether they're married or not. Usually they're the same group that obsesses over "overpopulation")

The purpose of progressivity in taxes is to ensure that taxes aren't so high as to make it difficult to live. On lower incomes, taking 20% of someone's income is essentially cutting into their living expenses. On higher incomes - well, you're cutting into your "Plasma TVs for every house in the room needing replacing because they're a week off" budget. OK, I'm being facetious on the latter, but you know what I mean.

Now, if your income supports multiple people, your cost of living will be higher. And it gets worse if the people you support means that some people who could potentially be wage earners can't do that because they have to be around supporting the others - or else you'd need to spend money on supporting the others while person who could be a wage earner or a caregiver takes on the former role.

And that describes having children exactly. You either have two working parents with high expenditures on childcare, or one working parent and no income from the caregiver parent.

Any reasonable society would recognize that the cost of living for the 2+1 group is higher than the 2 group, and set progressivity in the tax rate to reflect that.

Now, I know some people see it as a subsidy because they don't want children and don't see why other people should get a subsidy (etc), but it isn't one. Trying to get as much money out of parents as a non-parental couple is ultimately (1) a getting-blood-out-of-a-stone situation and (2) going to result in malnourished, poorly educated, badly brought up kids. Moreover, kids don't stay kids. Eventually they grow up. And they'll pay taxes.

It shouldn't bother anyone who's supportive of gay marriage. Taxes should be practical, and in any case, gays and lesbians who adopt (or use IVF and a donor, etc) will have exactly the same "benefits" (relief from taxes isn't really that, given it comes at the cost of the aforementioned higher cost of living, the real benefit is hearing your kid laugh, and being able to watch and guide them as they grow up, but I shouldn't have to say that...)

"Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." -- Goethe