Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: What is Solyent Green? (Score 1) 390

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46152631) Attached to: Government To Require Vehicle-to-vehicle Communication

If this system can automate driving, then we should be for it.

The worst system are ones that rely on the public for its reliability and safety.

Systems should be engineered so that the public can do whatever the fuck they want, because they will, and it will still be safe.

I don't want my safety to be based upon somebody else's responsibility, because I know the public is irresponsible.

We need our systems architects to assume such.

This is why we liberals prefer a socialized government, because we assume the worst in people, and design our systems around that, whereas conservatives place their responsibility on the public, because they assume people are good and responsible and hard working and careful, which they obviously are not.

Personal responsibility is equivalent to government irresponsibility.

What a complete logic fail. Your semantic processing is so myopic and shallow that you end up believing something exactly the opposite of reality. Here's your homework assignment: describe what a "socialized government" consists of; include especially its component parts such as the agents which enact its rules, maintain its structure, and execute its policies. Then tell me that you "assume the worst in people".

Or do you perhaps have citizenship in some heretofore unknown computer-operated Algorithm Nation?
Even if so, please describe the agents which write and implement your nation's algorithms.

Soylent green is people.

Comment: Re:Water cooling FTW (Score 1) 371

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46143645) Attached to: How loud is your primary computer?

Sounds like a very well-thought out setup that you've fine-tuned over many hours of work. I bet it really impresses the girlfriends you bring over.

It probably does, lots of girls are into gaming. I'm sure they are impressed at what a massive jerk you are.

WHOOSH!! ...went the boilerplate/obligatory Slashdot humor.

Comment: Re:Water cooling FTW (Score 0) 371

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46119363) Attached to: How loud is your primary computer?

Sounds like a very well-thought out setup that you've fine-tuned over many hours of work. I bet it really impresses the girlfriends you bring over.

Why thank you. I'd expect it would still impress slightly better than snarky and irrelevant comments about their hobbies though.

Aw man, it's an obligatory Slashdot joke. Nothing personal.You know, it's just like when you and another PC-thermal-dissipation guru are at the batting cages practicing for your baseball team's upcoming game, and you make snarky deprecating comments about each other's swing. Or when you and a buddy are down at your boxing gym sparring with each other and trash talking each other. Or whatever other sports you and your many friends play. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Comment: Re:Water cooling FTW (Score 2, Funny) 371

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46115541) Attached to: How loud is your primary computer?

Sadly, just about every "water cooled" computer requires both. Water cooling is rarely anything more than a way to put your air cooling in a more convenient location.

True, but when you can actually have the air cooling with much larger surface area in a convenient location, you can do much better than to just stick a radiator and fans inside or on the side of the case.

I use water cooling to almost silence my gaming "rig". I built a chimney of sorts behind my bookshelf, and have an array of passive radiators hidden there. Also the pump is at the bottom of the chimney, in foam padding. I have a fan at the bottom, and it is being controlled by the water temperature, but the ~250W (guesstimate) that my GPU and CPU dump into the water while gaming can be cooled fairly well with just the chimney effect. It's fairly inconspicuous too, since on the side of the bookshelf the visible bits are the reservoir at the top, the air intake with fan and two tubes coming out of holes at the bottom.

The PSU, chipset, SSD and HDDs need to be cooled by air in the case, so I need fans, but they can turn at a fairly quiet 600 - 800 rpm. In addition to the PSU fan, I use three fans to have slightly positive pressure inside the case, but I could probably do with just a single one if I took the effort to modify the case and make most of the case airtight so I could control the airflow better. The HDDs are suspended and sandwiched, but I think they wouldn't be too noticeable even without the extra soundproofing.

I sunk a fair amount of time and money into this (one needs quality components), but the silence is golden. Maintenance, however, can be a bit tedious because of the amount of coolant that needs to be bled and replaced. Also cleaning all tubing and connections is a chore. With the coolant split into 6 parallel flows for the radiators, filters, monitoring sensors and ports to help bleeding add up to quite a few fittings.

The setup would, of course, be pure overkill if the whole system wasn't in a silent space, but my "office" is an old studio with good soundproofing, so there isn't too much ambient noise. Computer fans do not bother me in more noisy environments, but they really started to bug me in that space. Now if I could just do something to the electrical noises my the components and display make...

Sounds like a very well-thought out setup that you've fine-tuned over many hours of work. I bet it really impresses the girlfriends you bring over.

Comment: Re:BSkyB didn't even have a SkyDrive (Score 1) 197

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46091057) Attached to: OneDrive Is Microsoft's Rebranded Name For SkyDrive

Always struck me an odd line. Imprisonment must surely count as taking the sky from someone.

You're being too literal. The song is the psychological theme of the entire series -- the ship's crew are all in their own way voluntary rebels or involuntary outcasts who for one reason or another are only at home IN "the sky", that is, trawling through space visiting world after world with no solid ground, only the ship as "home" and only each other as "family/friend". They are ramblers and frontiersmen. The song isn't actually claiming that it is physically impossible to prevent them from seeing or entering "the sky". It's their creed; both a statement of defiance and a statement of purpose -- no matter what else each one of them may have lost, they are determined to preserve their freedom.

"The sky" isn't just the physical sky. The lyric is a metaphor.

Comment: Re:Whistleblowers to the NY Times not China ... (Score 1) 822

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46090099) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

Whistleblowers go to the press who then informs the public. They do not go to China or Putin's Russia where these countries respective security services can pressure a person to reveal things they might not want to.

You mean, the members of the press who Snowden, of all people, knew very well were being surveilled directly or indirectly by the people he sought to blow the whistle on?

Irrelevant, once he informs the press they are free to report it. The NSA can not stop the NY Times from publishing a story on their activity.

Irrelevant, once his first couple calls to establish contact are accessed by the very people he is wanting to report on, he is arrested and jailed without legal representation under various "homeland security" protections before he can actually meet with the press to release any information.

Comment: Re:Whistleblowers to the NY Times not China ... (Score 1) 822

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46084181) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

Whistleblowers go to the press who then informs the public. They do not go to China or Putin's Russia where these countries respective security services can pressure a person to reveal things they might not want to.

You mean, the members of the press who Snowden, of all people, knew very well were being surveilled directly or indirectly by the people he sought to blow the whistle on?

Of the many horrible decisions made by President Obushma in the last 10 years, I think his most enduring political legacy might just be his excellent job of prosecuting/persecuting whistleblowers and stifling public review of how the governmental sausage-grinder works. By the end of the second decade of the 21st century, people will have been molded into an attitude of reflexive submission to their Overseers.

Comment: Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... (Score 1) 822

by SomePoorSchmuck (#46084049) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

I'm glad we know what he told us. But you can't not prosecute people who undoubtedly did commit crimes because you agree with their stated motives.

Sure you can, if you gloss over the legal issue of whether you can even know whether someone "undoubtedly did" commit a crime until as a minimum you have followed due process and tried their case before a competent court.

For one thing, the US government is demonstrably willing and able to grant retrospective immunity to parties who have probably broken the law if it wishes to do so. There are well-documented examples related to the same kind of surveillance issues Snowden raised, they were just applied to parties on the other side of the debate.

Exactly. The government goes out of its way to grant legal immunity to telecom/info companies for leaking private customer information to the government, because the government decrees that it has an unlimited "Need To Know" clearance on all its citizens actions, but of course when an individual leaks information about what the government is privately and illegally doing, the government decrees that the citizens have zero "Need to Know" on what their government is doing.

The liability/criminality arrows increasingly flow one way these days. Within 5-10 years any remaining vestiges of privacy will have been neatly sewn up. Just like the cliche that "the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it", well, the government's Big Data agencies view privacy as damage, and legislate around it.

Comment: Re:Planned intimidation tactic (Score 1) 1034

Oh come on.

This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue.

He could not put the "recording device" down because it is also his glasses, which he needed to see the screen from his seat.

This is going to happen more and more - wearable tech which augments is going to merge with prosthetic tech which enables / replaces. In future people who are currently blind may see via retinal implants coupled to electronic glasses with cameras (which may or may not record - how would you know ?).

What are you going to say to such people in your environment "in which it is a big issue" ? What do you suggest - deny the disabled prothetics for fear of the cyberman ?

In the future dystopia dominated by a few giant megalopolies, the company making your enhanced prostheses will also own the entertainment companies. Your RetinEyes implants will come hardwired with company-approved DRM which will automatically deactivate recording functions when presented with the subliminal QR command codes that flash every 10 seconds on the movie screen.

Comment: Re:Don't go to college, it's clearly not for you (Score 3, Insightful) 384

by SomePoorSchmuck (#45958793) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Can I Improve My Memory For Study?

Very few people have been killed by others getting their diplomas.

Thousands of DOD-contractor engineers over the past 60 years would disagree with you. Highly-credentialed scientists have been responsible for millions of deaths in the modern world.

Comment: Re:Surrogate decisionmaking (Score 1) 961

by SomePoorSchmuck (#45531599) Attached to: Why Scott Adams Wished Death On His Dad

You don't REALLY need to make those decisions if you trust your healthcare proxy (I hope you all have one) to know what your wishes are. The doctors (if they are good) will talk to them about the available options if such a need arises (I hope it doesn't for you or anyone else).

This seems like dangerous advice if you care about the psychological well-being of those you leave behind. Look no further than the Schiavo case. If you have all your conceivably anticipated situations spelled out in legally sound documentation, then the context of your death becomes about your loved ones learning to cope with the reality that you are going to die -- which is a reality we all will face anyway. If you just leave it up to one person to do it, you create a situation where disagreements among loved ones might possibly destroy relationships or at least cause severe emotional pain as people have to deal with the natural tendency to contextualize your death as "my brother-in-law didn't love my sister enough to keep her alive and hope for a miracle".

Comment: Re:do tell (Score 1) 233

by SomePoorSchmuck (#45435253) Attached to: ATF Tests Show 3D Printed Guns Can Explode

Millions of Millions of cells in your body now are not the same cells as three months ago. Yet "you" as a system persist.

Are you the same person as you were when you were 4 years old? 10 years old? 15 years old? You may be labelled the same person but your thought processes and decisions are very different. You as a person are different every year.

I didn't say 40 years ago. I said three months ago. Obviously the systems which propel the world today are not the same systems which propelled human society in its early stages.

they recognized a group of people in control is a system which has certain inherent tendencies that lead to bad ends, and therefore we must build in limits to those tendencies.

FTFY

You didn't FIFM. You simply spoke again of trees when I addressed the forest. The whole is greater than merely the sum of its parts.

The question is "would today's government make the same decisions as the one 30 years ago? The answer is "probably not".

That's exactly backwards from the question I might ask. The real question is, "Would the leaders of 30 years ago make the same decisions as the ones today?" The answer is, "Probably so, because they would be working within the bounds of the same system". It's all social engineering and choice architecture.

Comment: Re:do tell (Score 2) 233

by SomePoorSchmuck (#45433611) Attached to: ATF Tests Show 3D Printed Guns Can Explode

No because there are very few people currently working for the government that were working when those films and campaigns were created. The "government" is not a monolithic consistent sentient entity. It is made of the people elected to control it and hired to work for it therefore it constantly changes. The current government is not the "same" as one 30 years ago.

Which of course is beside the point. Millions of Millions of cells in your body now are not the same cells as three months ago. Yet "you" as a system persist. The genius of the political philosophers and statesmen of the 1700s and early 1800s was that they recognized government is a system which has certain inherent tendencies that lead to bad ends, and therefore we must build in limits to those tendencies. 200 years later this country is populated and run by their naive Eloi descendents, whose political philosophy no longer recognizes that Government is a system, and your policies should focus on the systemic effects first. Just because the individual workers in the belly of Leviathan change periodically doesn't mean we should ignore the Emergent Properties of governmental systems. Hitler made history, but History also made Hitler. Create a government and give it power, and individuals will arise to exercise that power. But modern people have a far less sophisticated political philosophy in which the government is perceived as little more than the lever in a Skinner box, and so all we do is vote for the outcomes we want to occur when we press that lever. There is no regard for what disastrous systemic tendencies we are enabling by insisting that government provide these outcomes.

Our collective intelligence vector now stands around saying, "But it's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!"

Comment: I'm not racist but.... (insert racist comment) (Score 1) 172

by SomePoorSchmuck (#45338867) Attached to: Oil Recovery May Have Triggered Texas Tremors

'Although you can never prove that correlation is equal to causation, certainly the most plausible explanation is that [the tremors] are related to the gas injection,' says Cliff Frohlich, a seismologist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics in Austin, who co-authored the study."

I would like to know what are the various possible explanations for the tremors, and the rubric used for evaluating the relative plausibility of those explanations, so that we can all evaluate Mr. Frohlich's opinion that gas injection is "certainly" the cause of the tremors.

Comment: The problem isn't the amount, it's the motive. (Score 1) 39

by SomePoorSchmuck (#44611115) Attached to: McAfee Regrets "Flawed" Trillion Dollar Cyber Crime Claims

but specifically noted the difficulty of determining exactly how much companies, governments and individuals could lose if subject to an attack. “It’s very difficult to put a dollar figure on it,” Mr Fey said.

So... why put a dollar figure on it? If the number is 4 trillion or 90 billion, what would be the difference in strategies that consumers and organizations should pursue in each case? Fey's language is so obviously just more marketdroid conjuration babble -- "Look! look over here at my right hand! Nothing in it at all! ."

The fact is, Mr. Fey, that the danger of security flaws isn't in the direct dollar amount of damage done by any single incursion, nor in the aggregate sum total of attacks to date. The danger of unsecured machines/networks is cost-neutral, because an unsecured machine/network necessarily implies an infinite relative cost to you -- that is, it is the state of being unsecured which is untenable, not the potential monetary loss. If your neighbor one night digs a trench through your yard and buries an extension cord spliced into your house's electrical power, does it really matter to you whether he is only plugging in his mp3 player to charge it once a week, versus running all his refrigerators and washing machines?

You cannot really put any dollar amount on someone else controlling part or all of your machine/network, because Access is not an object, it is a potentiality. A security hole is a hole is a hole. Patch it up regardless. If on September 10, 2001 some insurance actuary named Smith would have calculated the "loss" experienced in an airplane hijacking by determining the depreciated cost of the plane itself, any cargo it carried, the cost of compensatory marketing to restore consumer confidence, the earning potential of the passengers, etc. The next day, a bunch of black hat social engineering crackers capitalized on a long-unpatched security hole - Access to the cockpit - to pull off an exploit which had an eventual cost far exceeding our actuary's previous estimate by several factors of ten. (And that cost will continue to reverberate/multiply for decades to come.)

The focus on dollar value is simply Mr. Fey's way of opening the haggling process over how much his company wants to charge you. He knows that whatever number "industry experts" give will be quoted and repeated by our infotainment media and by other businesses/consultants wanting to stake their own claim in the network security gold rush. Once the notion enters public consciousness, well what's a $25,000/year enterprise license for software and security services to an individual company when faced with the "common sense" understanding that we're talking about great googly moogly-illions of dollars in Crime. So now he's simply been caught overestimating the number, which is expected in ANY good haggle. Now he's here to tell us "Okay, okay, because you're such a good friend, I'm going to roll it down to $300 billion -- special just for you!"

Don't constantly test and patch flaws because of some dollar amount reported by some "expert study" you read about. Constantly test and patch flaws because a good administrator takes care of business. The number is FUD, but your job is the same either way.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly

Working...