Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:More lucky than careful... (Score 2) 116

by TubeSteak (#47970937) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

Dude, you didn't even read the article you linked:

However, amid the renewed hype over the easily cracked code, a crucial element has been largely overlooked: Though the physical code preventing an unauthorized missile launch may have been all zeroes, the process of arming the actual nuclear warhead was much more involved, according to the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. This is the seemingly made-for-Hollywood process involving the simultaneous turning of keys, "Emergency War Order" safes and verified launch codes, which presumably were not all zeros.

An unarmed missile is barely a dirty bomb.

Comment: Re:"Stakeholders" (Score 2) 108

by TubeSteak (#47964935) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

Why do the ISP's want to break net neutrality? It's related to an ongoing fight between Netflix and pretty much every ISP on earth.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the point of Net Neutrality.
It's not just about the Netflix fight.

The biggest ISPs are increasingly turning into content providers and this puts them in direct competition with online service providers.

The idea behind Net Neutrality is to prevent these conglomerates from using their control of the network to either force payments from other companies (extracting rent from Netflix) or to force consumers into using co-branded offerings.

If you look at the wireless world, where the same rules don't apply, carriers are already taking money from other corporations to give you Facebook access (a co-branded offering) with no data charges.

Net Neutrality is fundamentally about preventing monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.
Just because a market is "free" does not magically make it competitive.

Comment: Re:Search algorithm failure and Yelp (Score 1) 236

by TubeSteak (#47962473) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

Search engines are absolutely awful at finding reviews. Try goggling "reviews for X", absolutely zero useful content.

Reviews for hotels (no parenthesis) brought up this slashdot article on the last page of google's (some results omitted) search results.
Such is the power of /.

Comment: Re:The review ecosystem is good and truly broken.. (Score 3, Interesting) 236

by TubeSteak (#47962457) Attached to: Small Restaurant Out-Maneuvers Yelp In Reviews War

When you are looking at reviews of hotels or restaurants you have almost nothing to judge the comments against.

I think the idea is to tie their reviews into the larger ecosystem of online comments.
So if they are assholes in the comments section of [online news article] and get downvoted,
then that would be reflected in the data your site gets from the "third party reputation system."
Then it's up to you how you want your site to weight their asshole behavior.

Ideally, this system would support one identification, but multiple user names,
in the sense that I can be Bob on one website and Alice on another,
but the reputation reflects all my online comments.

That said, while I see how it could be useful, I actually hate the idea.
Having ALL my online comments concentrated in 1 easy to hack/subpoena place is discomfiting.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 381

What? Obama's new wonder-plan is what TOOK AWAY our low deductible plan and forced us, for more money, to buy one that will cost us thousands more each year in premiums, and ten thousand more a year in deductibles.

Here's a decent article

The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them.

Insurance companies typically do like to change their insurance plans, making changes to cost-sharing or the benefits they offer. That means that grandfathered plans have disappeared. [...]

These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.

The law took away your plan, only so far as your insurance company decided to get rid of it.

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 2) 381

Because of how the math is working out, we're told to expect that next year's premiums will go up by another 45-55%. Thanks, Mr. Obamacare Cheerleader, if you're one of the people who helped to empower the people who snuck this 100% partisan monstrosity through congress on Pelosi's "deeming" technique. Thanks a lot.

In all seriousness, if the facts are as you claim, go to the media or write your congressman.

Fox News and Republican politicians have embarrassed themselves repeatedly by publicizing Obamacare horror stories that completely fall apart when verified.
They'd love to have a solid example of someone who really did get shafted and can't get a lower cost plan.

P.S. You say "Were forced to go to a new plan," if you didn't go through the exchange, your insurance company may be the one shafting you.

Comment: Re:Only $11 million per person! (Actually $20 mill (Score 1) 381

Let's assume

Instead of your napkin calculations, maybe you should look for legitimate estimates.
Here's the Congressional Budget Office:

If you dig around some more, you'll find plenty of other people who have actually run the numbers and explained their forecasts.

In 2013, we saw the following rate increases due to Obamacare:

And if the insurance company doesn't spend 80% or 85% of those premiums on healthcare, they have to cut a check and return the excess to their customers.
Thanks Obama!

Also, here's a fact check for your numbers:
There's a link to the original survey in there.
Four of fifty states had a sample size of 8 or greater.
The other 46 states had sample sizes of 6 or less.
There's either fuck all for competition in 46/50 states,
or maybe the numbers you quoted aren't very useful for drawing conclusions.

Comment: Re:Black letter law (Score 1) 121

by TubeSteak (#47954373) Attached to: Proposed Law Would Limit US Search Warrants For Data Stored Abroad

Moreover the issue was always that USA people had control of the data: because Microsoft could access and retrieve the requested documents from a terminal within the United States, even though the actual search and retrieval would occur abroad, the data was still under Microsoftâ(TM)s control in the United States, and thus properly subject to the SCA warrant.

Microsoft USA has access to the data.
Microsoft Ireland has control of the data.

If there's no distinction between access and control, then why bother with multinational subsidiaries?

Comment: Re:Name (Score 2) 190

by TubeSteak (#47951715) Attached to: Why a Chinese Company Is the Biggest IPO Ever In the US

"Alibaba -- open sesame. Alibaba -- 40 thieves," Ma said. "Alibaba is not a thief. Alibaba is a kind, smart business person, and he helped the village. So...easy to spell, and global know. Alibaba opens sesame for small- to medium-sized companies. We also registered the name AliMama, in case someone wants to marry us!"

Comment: Re:And they wonder why I block ads... (Score 5, Informative) 223

by TubeSteak (#47950855) Attached to: Google's Doubleclick Ad Servers Exposed Millions of Computers To Malware

Sometimes pages serves content from a different domain but that is rare enough to manage manually.

Not anymore.
Far too many sites (/. included) have or use a CDN for content.
And they will fetch at least half a dozen scripts for bookmarking/sharing with facebook/linkedin/tumblr/twitter/pinterest/googlehangouts/etc
Then, they'll try and fetch a non-zero number of tracking/website monitoring scripts.

Ghostery says is a 1x1 pixel tracker for WebTrends.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 1) 319

by TubeSteak (#47949893) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Governments' legitimate interest in regulation is in product safety and fraud prevention, not in deciding who gets to do business with whom and at what price.

That's a nice statement of "scope," to bad it completely ignores reality.
Government (in most states) sets the prices for utilities.
Government sets build out requirements for utilities.
Government prevents discrimination in the offering of services.
Government requires handicap accessibility in public accommodations.
Government prevents excessive interest rates being charged on loans.
I could go on.

Government has a legitimate interest in deciding who gets to do business with whom and at what price.
Unless you want to abandon all the existing protections of the law, you might want to redefine what you consider to be the appropriate scope of government regulation.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz