Forgot your password?

+ - Comcast tells government that its data caps aren't actually "data caps"-> 1

Submitted by mpicpp
mpicpp (3454017) writes "Customers must pay more if they exceed limits—but it’s not a cap, Comcast says.

For the past couple of years, Comcast has been trying to convince journalists and the general public that it doesn’t impose any “data caps” on its Internet service.

That’s despite the fact that Comcast in some cities enforces limits on the amount of data customers can use and issues financial penalties for using more than the allotment. Comcast has said this type of billing will probably roll out to its entire national footprint within five years, perhaps alongside a pricier option to buy unlimited data.

“There isn't a cap anymore. We're out of the cap business,” Executive Vice President David Cohen said in May 2012 after dropping a policy that could cut off people's service after they use 250GB in a month. Comcast's then-new approach was touted to "effectively offer unlimited usage of our services because customers will have the ability to buy as much data as they want.""

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Because of _censorship_ (Score 1) 299

by UnknownSoldier (#47758145) Attached to: Put A Red Cross PSA In Front Of the ISIS Beheading Video

Making excuses for X never works.

Either we are consistent, or we quickly slide down that slippery slope of banning X, Y, Z.

At what points does it stop?

Do we ban hentai, futanari, computer-generated / Computer-Graphics child porn, etc., etc.?? Who decides?? Why should we pretend that person _A_ morals are the ones everyone has to follow??

America was founded upon the principle of open toleration. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend the right for you to say it."

If you don't want to watch images or videos that you find offensive, here is a novel idea, don't watch them.

The correct solution is tag videos, much like movies already do, so people have an IDEA of what to expect. I already skip NSFW emails, pictures, videos. I don't have the right to stop others from watching that and don't pretend to. I may not like what they see but guess what -- I don't have to. I only need to tolerate their choices as long as it effecting others negatively.

Censorship isn't the solution. In /. we allow people to post -- groupthink just moderates them down so they are less visible. Why? Because of one little fact:

ALL man-made laws are RELATIVE.

"Only cowards censor."

Comment: Re:Doesn't need much to make it right (Score 1) 248

by UnknownSoldier (#47758005) Attached to: New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

Excellent analysis. Spot on.

That's because Microsoft doesn't have a fucking clue about UI -- how to design a good consistent UI. They half-ass everything.

Not that Apple is (much) better, but at least the Apple System Preferences has been consistent from OXS 10.1 .. 10.9.

Comment: Like most games ... game dev is hit or miss (Score 0) 112

by UnknownSoldier (#47750743) Attached to: Is Dong Nguyen Trolling Gamers With "Swing Copters"?

This is a non-story ...

As it was already pointed out on ... Dong Nguyen got extremely lucky with Flappy Bird. The game is cheesy but it has focused game design making it a "good" game.

Of course everyone will be watching if he can replicate his success with Swing Copters. The controls aren't that great but everyone is waiting to see how it will do.

Trolling? No, just another game dev trying to follow up on his success. Just like Notch "failed" at his "Scrolls" project.

+ - Choose Your Side On The Linux Divide

Submitted by snydeq
snydeq (1272828) writes "The battle over systemd exposes a fundamental gap between the old Unix guard and a new guard of Linux developers and admins, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'Last week I posted about the schism brewing over systemd and the curiously fast adoption of this massive change to many Linux distributions. If there's one thing that systemd does extremely well, it is to spark heated discussions that devolve into wild, teeth-gnashing rants from both sides. Clearly, systemd is a polarizing subject. If nothing else, that very fact should give one pause. Fundamental changes in the structure of most Linux distributions should not be met with such fervent opposition. It indicates that no matter how reasonable a change may seem, if enough established and learned folks disagree with the change, then perhaps it bears further inspection before going to production. Clearly, that hasn't happened with systemd.'"

Comment: Re:Because of _censorship_ (Score 1) 299

by UnknownSoldier (#47749749) Attached to: Put A Red Cross PSA In Front Of the ISIS Beheading Video


"Name & Shame" is definitely one way to go about this. It has been used successfully. See:


7. The Harvard Man

For the cops on the front lines of the War on Drugs, the federal government's fixation with marijuana was deeply perplexing. As they saw it, the problem wasn't pot but the drug-related violence that accompanied cocaine and other hard drugs. After the crack epidemic in the late 1980s, police commissioners around the country, like Lee Brown in Houston, began adding more officers and developing computer mapping to target neighborhoods where crime was on the rise. The crime rate dropped. But by the mid-1990s, police in some cities were beginning to realize there was a certain level that they couldn't get crime below. Mass jailings weren't doing the trick: Only fifteen percent of those convicted of federal drug crimes were actual traffickers; the rest were nothing but street-level dealers and mules, who could always be replaced.

Police in Boston, concerned about violence between youth drug gangs, turned for assistance to a group of academics. Among them was a Harvard criminologist named David Kennedy. Working together, the academics and members of the department's anti-gang unit came up with what Kennedy calls a "quirky" strategy and convinced senior police commanders to give it a try. The result, which began in 1995, was the Boston Gun Project, a collaborative effort among ministers and community leaders and the police to try to break the link between the drug trade and violent crime. First, the project tracked a particular drug-dealing gang, mapping out its membership and operations in detail. Then, in an effort called Operation Ceasefire, the dealers were called into a meeting with preachers and parents and social-service providers, and offered a deal: Stop the violence, or the police will crack down with a vengeance. "We know the seventeen guys you run with," the gangbangers were told. "If anyone in your group shoots somebody, we'll arrest every last one of you." The project also extended drug treatment and other assistance to anyone who wanted it.

The effort worked: The rates of homicide and violence among young men in Boston dropped by two-thirds. Drug dealing didn't stop -- "people continued what they were doing," Kennedy concedes, "but they put their guns down." As Kennedy reflected on the success of the Boston project, which ran for five years, he wondered if he had discovered a deeper truth about drug-related violence. If the murders weren't a necessary component of the drug trade -- if it was possible to separate the two -- perhaps cities could find a way to reduce the violence, even if they could do nothing about the drugs.

In 2001, Kennedy got a call from the mayor of San Francisco that gave him a chance to examine his theories in a new setting. The city had experienced a recent spike in its murder rate, much of it caused by an ongoing feud between two drug-dealing gangs -- Big Block and West Mob -- that had resulted in dozens of murders over the years. Could Kennedy, the mayor asked, help police figure out how to stop the killings?

Kennedy flew out to San Francisco and met with police. But as he researched the history of the violence, it seemed to confirm his findings in Boston. Though both Big Block and West Mob were involved in dealing drugs, the shootings were not really drug-related -- the two groups occupied different territories and were not battling over turf. "The feud had started over who would perform next at a neighborhood rap event," says Kennedy, now a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "They had been killing each other ever since."

Such evidence suggested that drug enforcement needed to focus more narrowly on those responsible for the violence. "Seventy percent of the violence in these hot neighborhoods comes back to drugs," Kennedy says. "But one of the profound myths is that these homicides are about the drug trade. The violence is driven by these crews -- but they're not killing each other over business." The real spark igniting the murders, he realized, was peer pressure, a kind of primordial male goad that drove young gang members to kill each other even in instances when they weren't sure they wanted to.

Given that police departments had already locked up every drug dealer in sight and were still having problems with violence, Kennedy thought a new approach was worth a try. "There's a difference between saying, 'I'm watching this, and you should stop,' and putting someone in federal lockup," he says. "The violence is not about the drug business -- but that's a very hard thing for people to understand."

But in the early days of the Bush administration, police departments were in no hurry to experiment with an approach that focused on drug-related murders and mostly ignored users who weren't committing violence. Kennedy's efforts proved to be yet another missed opportunity in the War on Drugs -- an experience that made clear how difficult it is for science to influence the nation's drug policy.

"If ten years ago the medical community had figured out a way to reduce the deaths from breast cancer by two-thirds, every cancer clinic in the country would have been using those techniques a year later," Kennedy says. "But when it comes to drugs and violence, there's been nothing like that."

+ - Munich Council say talk of LiMux demise is greatly exaggerated->

Submitted by ndogg
ndogg (158021) writes "The rumors of Munich city going back to Microsoft seem to have been greatly exaggerated. There was a review of the city's IT systems that was called for by the mayor, but it wasn't solely just to decide on whether to move back to Microsoft. And while there have been complaints about LiMux, they mostly seem to concern compatibility with, which may well be resolved by switching to LibreOffice."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:why can the world (Score 1) 327

by UnknownSoldier (#47743801) Attached to: ACM Blames the PC For Driving Women Away From Computer Science

> Is it that there is a biological difference that guides men and women to different career choices, or is there some social prodding that causes men and women to self regulate?

You do realize the answer is not mutually exclusive, right?

Men != Women for biological and social reasons. Film at 11.

+ - DoxBox: Open-Source disk encryption for Windows

Submitted by monkey999
monkey999 (3597657) writes "A new disk encryption program for Windows has been released that is compatible with Linux encryption and — unlike Truecrypt — is fully maintained. From the announcement:


  • Full transparent encryption, DoxBoxes appear as removable disks in Windows Explorer.
  • Explorer mode lets you access DoxBoxes when you don't have admin permissions.
  • Compatible with Linux encryption, Cryptoloop "losetup", dm-crypt, and LUKS. Linux shell scripts support deniable encryption on Linux.
  • Supports smartcards and security tokens.
  • Optional 'key files' let you use a thumb-drive as a key.
  • Portable mode doesn't need to be installed and leaves little trace on 3rd party PCs
  • Deniable encryption protects you from 'rubber hose cryptography'.

+ - Is our universe a quantum cellular automaton?->

Submitted by St.Creed
St.Creed (853824) writes "Noble-prize winner Gerard van 't Hooft is best known for the work that enabled physicists to predict the mass of the top quark, w-boson and z-boson. But he has long been known for his rather "idiosyncratic" ideas on the nature of the universe as well. His theory on the holographic universe is by now fairly well known. However, he has taken it a step further in a 202-page article (or book) on, where he claims that there may well be a system with classical properties underlying quantum mechanics.

Our models suggest that Einstein may still have been right, when he objected against the conclusions drawn by Bohr and Heisenberg. It may well be that, at its most basic level, there is no randomness in nature, no fundamentally statistical aspect to the laws of [quantum] evolution.

The ideas presented in the introduction are quite interesting to read even for non-physicists."
Link to Original Source

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.