Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:all that article tells me is that they are (Score 1) 148

by WheezyJoe (#47549337) Attached to: Microsoft's Nokia Plans Come Into Better Focus

staying the corse with fewer people.

I'm sure that'll work out well, like the current corse is.

Agreed. The article is MBA-speak, with no vision, ideas, or anticipation. You hear this kind of shit, irrelevance is coming.

I'm sad to see it come to this, but the rumors have been persistent that MS had become more and more of an un-fun drudgery politics look-over-your-shoulder shit-hole to work at, and that can only lead to brain-drain, loss of morale, and a black-hole sucking away product ideas that might make the company worthwhile again, leaving only the suits and bean-counters steering the ship.

Comment: Re:Discrimination against atheists (Score 3, Funny) 198

Plus good luck getting elected if you are honest about being an atheist. It's basically considered political suicide in most of the country.

Pffft. Who's requiring you to be honest? It's politics. Fuck being honest about that shit. It ain't nobody's business.
(besides, if religious nuts would just keep it as their business, instead of always making it everyone else's business, religion wouldn't be such a fucking problem)

Comment: Re:recoiling in disgust is not the same as apathy (Score 2) 198

Then run for office yourself.

EEEEEWWWWWW

Have you seen the caliber of psychopathic nimrods that run for office?
That's beneath me. /jk

Yep. And that's how shit keeps happening, the circle jerk goes round and round.
But just imagine if a bunch of non-nimrods stepped up, put cooler heads together, start chipping away at the nimrods.
Might go slow at first, but man, how cool would it be if our legislatures were nimrod-free.

Nimrod-free
(how nice it would be)

Comment: Re:There is no magic bullet (Score 2) 474

by WheezyJoe (#47490533) Attached to: World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use

Ending prohibition didn't kill the mob. They just switched from bootlegging to trafficking narcotics, and they reached the height of their power in the 50s and 60s, long after the prohibition ended.

Well... by this thinking, the mob continued because prohibition didn't end. They moved from one prohibited product to another, but always a product the people wanted, but couldn't get because of a prohibition, and the mob was in a particularly good position (with their organization and international reach) to supply.

In the same way, while legalizing marijuana might reduce crime here in the US, cartels in Mexico are Too Big to Fail. They won't pack up their things and head home quietly if marijuana is legalized; they'll just start peddling something new.

What might happen if the cartels' market dried up is, at best, speculation. Could be risky, change is scary. But doing nothing and maintaining the status quo is worse. The cartels continue to get better and better at smuggling (they got submarines for fuck sake) and much, much richer while turning Central and South American countries into murderous hell-holes from which children flee to the U.S. on foot, and that ain't no shit.

I don't see how decriminalizing them good possibly be a good idea. The addiction rate for these drugs is 2.5 to 3 times that of alcohol.

I'm also nervous about cocaine and meth easily getting around (like, more than it already is). But the fact is, drug addiction and mental illness is just gonna have to be something that this country has to shut up, knuckle-down and deal with. It's not going away, and prohibition doesn't help. Prohibition only has power to do one thing... throw people in jail. It doesn't cure addiction (drugs make their way into prisons all the time), and distracts everyone from the larger issue of mental illness. It's like taking out the garbage: nobody wants to do it, nobody gets credit for doing it, but it's gotta be done or shit just piles up and gets worse.

Comment: Re:No public drug use (Score 1) 474

by WheezyJoe (#47490349) Attached to: World Health Organization Calls For Decriminalization of Drug Use

Companies should not be permitted to profit from the sale of addictive substances for recreational purposes.

like tobacco in cigarettes?

or the 200 other ingredients in there to get you addicted?

The poster is saying what's typically said. You would think that selling a highly addictive substances for recreational purposes would make you rich and invincible, entire nations hopelessly enslaved by your product. Addict-zombie attack. But you'd be wrong.

Sometimes, the answer isn't the easy one. The lesson painfully learned from prohibition is that prohibition raises demand, not lowers it.

On the other hand, education and regulation, not out-and-out bans, really work. Tobacco smoking in the U.S. used to be around 50% in the Don Draper years. Now it's under 20 and still dropping. Tobacco companies are having to merge to maintain market share.

The difference is between people politely, but firmly, told to take their habit outside or into a (dirty) designated area or else you'll get a fine, and police breaking down doors and throwing flash-bombs that kill your grandma with a heart attack (because the Informant lied, and the Chief gave the green-light because the Politician wanted to go on the news that evening with pictures of drugs on the table.

Comment: Blame the Players, not the Game (Score 5, Insightful) 127

by WheezyJoe (#47490171) Attached to: Dungeons & Dragons' Influence and Legacy

The great thing about D&D (that's often lost on people) is that it was a social thing. All your friends get together, kinda like college poker nights (except you're NOT trying to drain the sucker next to you). Best campaign I ever had we were ten kids in a room (on a rainy day), working together, hashing things out. The DM was really prepared, and we got completely immersed and the hours flew by like they do when you're really having fun. It was great.

The fact is, it's just damn hard to get a good campaign together, get a lot of people interested. Probably much harder now because D&D has that (false) anti-social stigma these days, and who needs a DM when you got a computer? D&D takes a lot more work than just firing up WoW (or, for that matter, Zork) by yourself in the basement. Even in the day, if your friends weren't into it, role-playing games kinda suck. On the flip side, if your friends are stoked, your DM puts in the prep-time, and you're all keen to cooperate and work with each other, D&D can make some of the best memories you'll ever have. 'cause it's with your friends.

Most people I know who shit on D&D either never played it, or had a lame experience in a lame campaign. That's a shame, but that's life. Anything involving people, from drama club to Boy Scouts to playing football can leave a bad taste in your mouth if the people in it don't care or are uncooperative assholes.

Comment: Re:Major source of corruption is Tax Code not PACs (Score 4, Insightful) 209

by WheezyJoe (#47283483) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC

To get rid of the major source of political corruption in the U.S. we need to rewrite the tax codes.

In order for "we" to rewrite the tax codes, better people need to be elected to Congress and state legislatures. Today, to a great extent, that means PACs, because PACs raise the money for campaigns that make the difference between someone wanting to get elected and someone having a real chance of getting elected.

The weak link of democracy is... democracy. First, the voting public needs to know who you are, and second, the voting public needs to get off their asses and vote. Seriously. There's a mid-term election coming up... pay attention to the turn-out.

"We" will continue to elect puppets and pawns, owned by and obligated to the "secret" donors to the PACs (and who will continue to twist the tax code for their benefit), until "we" start coming out in sufficient numbers and elect other people, and thus embarrass all the "secret" donors who sent money to the PACs but got no return on their "investment".

Comment: Re:1994-95 (Score 1) 204

by WheezyJoe (#47278345) Attached to: X Window System Turns 30 Years Old

The machines or the OS?

The machines. Fine black slabs (NeXTstations), cubes with giant NeXT Dimension monitors, and matching black 400dpi laser printers... Sun made some fine-looking Sparc pizza boxes back in the day with cute purple feet, but the NeXTs were a joy to use for anything from research to productivity. I recall Mathematica, Webster's Dictionary, and WriteNow were bundled for free!

As to OS X, I appreciate the underlying NeXTStep framework, which is particularly evident from Xcode. But the display is something new (not Display Postscript), and ever since version 1 "cheetah" I have wondered why the performance seemed so poor, when NeXTStep ran just fine on Motorola 68030's and 68040's and 16 MBytes RAM.

I mean, OS X performs fine now, but it's running on Intel hardware that's not even in the same sport as what NeXTStep was running on in the early 90's. In view of that, I would expect something based on NeXTStep to be absolutely stunning quick on modern Mac Intel hardware, but it's just ok.
 

Comment: Re:1994-95 (Score 1) 204

by WheezyJoe (#47274729) Attached to: X Window System Turns 30 Years Old

NeXT machines used Display Postscript not X.

X11 was available, both commercial and free (e.g. CoXist), as an app that ran on NeXT's Display Postscript. I miss NeXT computers, looked good, performed well, easy to service, easy to program, good networking, good documentation, sported floppies that could write DOS disks which came in handy so many many times in those days before thumb drives. And I remember Display Postscript having some X-like network capability (but I didn't use it much). Besides, both the WWW and Doom, and who knows what else, started life on a NeXT. I wish them well, wherever they be.

Am I old?

Not at all, though there are some younger people around.

True.

Comment: Re: Incompetent -- Learning Archival Strategies (Score 2) 396

by WheezyJoe (#47237759) Attached to: One Developer's Experience With Real Life Bitrot Under HFS+

Simple: It is a "Datasheet" covering an "archival grade medium". If you do not know that, you have absolutely no business working on any kind of "mission critical" storage, as you are simply incompetent with regard to that subject.

Easy, there, big fella. Posting a link to a datasheet would have sufficed. Ain't right to call a man incompetent for asking a question. Truly, an incompetent is one who don't never ask the question assuming he already knows. Credit is due for seeking to learn something.

Comment: Re:Those that are incompetent will lose their data (Score 1) 396

by WheezyJoe (#47237059) Attached to: One Developer's Experience With Real Life Bitrot Under HFS+

There are only two options for reliable data archiving: 1. Spinning disks with redundancy and regular checks 2. Archival grade tape. There used to be MOD as well, but as nobody cared enough to buy it, development stalled and then died.

Any experience with M-discs as archival media? Newer cd and dvd burners are compatible with them, but do they deliver?

Comment: The Secret's in the Crystals (Score 1) 172

by WheezyJoe (#47223233) Attached to: Human Blood Substitute Could Help Meet Donor Blood Shortfall

Are dark, sparkling Foldger's Crystals rich enough to keep these patients alive and well?

Spokesman: How do you feel?

Patient #1: Fine, thank you.

Spokesman: Did you know that we've replaced all of your blood with Foldger's Crystals?

Patient #1: An instant?

Spokesman: That's right.

Patient #1: I can't believe it. I feel great. I'm full of Foldger's Crystals, really?

Spokesman: Yes, and so are all the other patients in this intensive care unit. How do you all feel?

[ The other patients show reactions of approval ]

Comment: Re:And what's better? (Score 1) 200

by WheezyJoe (#47048435) Attached to: China Bans Government Purchases of Windows 8

It is disingenuous to count XP's support period from its first release date...Support for original XP (without a Service Pack) ended in 2005- only 4 years supported. The last Service Pack, SP3, was released in 2008- giving it a respectable 6 years supported.

That sounds about right. I refused to upgrade from Windows 2000 until XP had made it past SP1, because XP had so many problems on release. These days, we think of patches to fix security issues. But with XP, most patches just fixed things that were plain broken. The years before SP2, and probably SP3, really shouldn't count in XP's lifespan.

The way to make a small fortune in the commodities market is to start with a large fortune.

Working...