Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:why wait? (Score 5, Insightful) 273

I think he might have had a few more people on his side if he would have said this from day one.

Maybe he anticipated how they would try to play the game?

Snowden: I have docs showing ...
NSA: no you don't
Snowden: here they are
NSA: ok, but you should've worked within the system
Snowden: I told 10 people in the system
<--- where we are today
NSA: no you didn't
Snowden: here's who I told and when ...
NSA: ok, but <another attempt to change the focus to Snowden...>

Comment: Re:Kill the Electoral College please... (Score 1) 1576

by Weirsbaski (#41905141) Attached to: Barack Obama Retains US Presidency

The fact is that the vote of a person living in Wisconsin counts for 3.8 times as many Electoral Votes as my vote as a Californian.

I don't have to point out that the "people/electoral vote" ratio from WI to CA is only about 1.1 (others beat me to that), but even that's misleading: the all-or-nothing nature of (almost) every state's EC voting gives large states a extra-large influence on the election outcome. In a race that's tight in the state, a change of only 1% of votes can cause lots of EC votes to swing from one side to the other. Read recent history for OH and FL to see that play out.

Comment: Re:Christ, (Score 4, Insightful) 652

by Weirsbaski (#39193267) Attached to: Rearview Car Cameras Likely Mandated By 2014
Why could these only save 200 people, max? Will they be uninstalled from the car after the first year?

Beyond lives, I see potential in preventing "oopsie, I backed into a parked car"-type accidents, avoid just one of those over the life of the vehicle and the camera more than paid for itself.

Comment: Re:New anti-privacy trends? (Score 1) 204

by Weirsbaski (#37736632) Attached to: Verizon Wireless Changes Privacy Policy

What I don't get is why this data is so useful to advertisers. I've almost never bought anything based solely on an ad.

Everybody says that, and yet companies spend untold $billions on marketing and marketing-effectiveness research. Which means either (A) this pervasive marketing is a huge waste-o-cash, or (B) we ("consumers" as a whole) are mostly unaware of the heavy influence that marketing has on us.

Knowing how much those companies would love to keep the dollars headed toward executives instead of blowing it on expenses, my money's on (B).

Comment: Re:Stupid article (Score 1) 279

by Weirsbaski (#34991510) Attached to: Genghis Khan, History's Greenest Conqueror

Since percentages aren't distorted by exponential growth, that means he's responsible for a 10% reduction in the world's current population.

Not necessarily.

Suppose for a minute 2 parallel timelines- one where Khan killed lots of people, a second where he didn't. You can't assume that timeline-1's (relatively uncrowded) population would would increase at exactly the same rate as timeline-2's (relatively crowded) population. Maybe timeline 2 would produce more children (people closer together plus a safer societal environment equals more couples having children). Or maybe the higher population density would subtly discourage having children (causing a leveling of population growth, as we're seeing in some places today).

Comment: Re:First Union? (Score 1) 576

by Weirsbaski (#33708378) Attached to: Unions Urging Actors Not To Work On Hobbit Movie

Because the wrong people invariably end up with the job security and ridiculous pension. There is no real method in typical US union contracts for weeding out the bad, since they're seniority based rather than performance based when it comes to job security.

Because the wrong people invariably end up with the job security and ridiculous pension. There is no real method in typical US CEO and Senior Executive contracts for weeding out the bad, since they're seniority based rather than performance based when it comes to job security.

Comment: Re:Already secure (Score 1) 250

by Weirsbaski (#33501138) Attached to: NSA Director Says the US Must Secure the Internet

You're missing the point entirely. When US gov. officials use the term "secure" they mean precisely "control and oppress those in question" or often "retain power at all costs". You must learn to read these statements properly.

It's naive to only call out "US gov. officials". Every gov't wants this power, and quite a few (maybe more than you'd like to admit) are working hard to get it.

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...