Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A little scary (Score 3, Insightful) 188

As far as I can tell, there really wasn't a cover-up. It was mostly when Republicans got a hold of the story and tried to have someone's head for it that bureaucrats started to circle the wagons.

Wait, what? Are you seriously suggesting that it's not a coverup because the coverup didn't start until people started asking questions?

Comment: Re:This is good! (Score 1) 528

by Zak3056 (#47767829) Attached to: Limiting the Teaching of the Scientific Process In Ohio

A friend of mine from Georgia (the US state) described his high school biology lecture on evolution as "OK, today I'm legally required to tech evolution. We all believe in Jesus, right? OK, next topic."

I went to a catholic elementary school, and one of my 6th grade teachers was a nun named Sister Catherine-Joseph who taught two subjects: religion and science. Despite the obvious setup for failure, she taught both rigorously, and well. I HATED that woman with a passion, but she was, absolutely, a superior educator who would have smacked the shit out of someone with a ruler for daring to suggest that, "We all believe in Jesus, *wink wink*" was either suitable coverage or a valid refutation of evolution.

Comment: Re:Gravity isn't SF (Score 4, Insightful) 180

by Zak3056 (#47721871) Attached to: The 2014 Hugo Awards

Good science fiction is (almost) ALWAYS about people, and how they react in an environment that is altered by a technology, or an event, or some other external influence that simply wasn't imaginable until our understanding of the universe progressed (the science part of the fiction). While there are some examples that differ from this, if you take a look through your favorite stories, they almost all conform to this pattern.

In this case, it's an exploration of what happens to someone who is in orbit during an event that leads to Kessler Syndrome. I'm not saying the film deserved to win, but I think complaining that "this isn't science fiction" is decidedly unwarranted.

Comment: Re:Political Absurdism (Score 1) 69

The problem with your position is that L3's own data shows the port at over 100% utilization. They're not being throttled, they're trying to shove ten pounds of shit into a five pound bag.

Like I said, you can point fingers at whoever the peer is for letting the situation fester, but L3's own data suggests this was passive aggressive rather than active malice.

Comment: Re:Political Absurdism (Score 1) 69

Then how do you explain the Level 3 data? The major ISPs got caught red-handed throttling Netflix traffic until the extortion was paid (Comcast in this case). Days later everything was running smooth as a baby's ass. So how can you seriously make an argument that all the blame lies on Netflix' shoulders when the ISP's customers are paying for the bandwidth to receive the content?

Let's say there was a burden. If the ISPs aren't willing to upgrade their networks then their business model is the problem, not how the internet works. And according to the data it looks like the ISPs infrastructure isn't that bad off anyway, they were simple messing with the traffic to extort payments from content providers.

TL;DR: WTF are you talking about?

http://blog.level3.com/global-...

Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.

You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.

Comment: Re:There is no divorce in Catholicism (Score 4, Interesting) 304

by Zak3056 (#47102823) Attached to: Iran Court Summons Mark Zuckerberg For Facebook Privacy Violations

There's a pretty short list of what is considered acceptable grounds for annulment.

You might believe that, but practice is a bit different. My parents were married for six years, then (civilly) divorced. Two years later, they remarried each other (I have no comment on how smart my parents are) or, in the Catholic view, "renewed their vows." This marriage lasted another two years or so before they separated for good (the divorce followed along a couple of years later).

Fast forward a decade and a half, and my father (who in the interim married a second wife and had a second divorce) wants to marry a devout Catholic who refuses to marry outside of the Church. My father was able to obtain an annulment despite the opposition of my mother, her family, and my father's entire family (my grandmother (dad's mom) felt strongly enough about it to write letters to an archbishop and a cardinal). The archdiocese of Oakland saw no reason not to grant the annulment, and did so.

While I do wish my father domestic happiness, the result here is completely absurd, and goes to show that if you send enough money the church's way, morality is flexible.

Comment: Re:Hackers (Score 2) 89

by Zak3056 (#46829785) Attached to: The Hackers Who Recovered NASA's Lost Lunar Photos

I've never heard Samuel L. Jackson say that, although I have heard him say, "English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?"

You know, I noticed the missing comma the second after I hit submit, and, this being slashdot, I was absolutely sure someone would call me on it. Punctuation is the difference between saying, "Let's eat, grandma," and "Let's eat grandma!" just like capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your uncle jack off a horse.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 2) 1633

by Zak3056 (#46773681) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

You're essentially claiming that both you and your AR-15 are at least as accurate as the gold medalist in the 50m rifle at the 2012 summer games was while firing whatever piece of art was crafted for him by Anschutz. You can imagine how one might be incredulous in the face of this claim. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a valid response.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Comment: Re:April Fools stories are gay (Score 1) 1482

by Zak3056 (#46634123) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

He should not be prosecuted for giving his funds, but for spreading his hate speech in public against gays.
And the proper punishment would be: banning him to repeat that or face a heavy fine (yeah yeah free speech lala I hear you, idiot!)

"Gay people are evil and should be stoned to death" is hate speech (though given no specific incitement to violence, is protected speech).
"I don't think people of the same sex should be allowed to marry" is a valid political view, and is also protected speech.

For the record, I firmly support gay marriage and don't really understand how anyone who claims to believe in small government, "freedom," etc could oppose it, as it basically comes down to "we don't like how those people live their lives, and it ought to be illegal." However, you're worse, because you're one of those assholes that wants to make talking about things illegal. "Free speech" isn't "it's ok to talk about those things I support."

Comment: Re:Griswold vs Connecticut (Score 4, Informative) 193

Importantly, there's no explicit "right to privacy" in the US Constitution

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sure sounds a hell of a lot like "privacy" to me. Of course, an "explicit" right to privacy is not required, it's already guaranteed by those pesky 9th and 10th amendments.

Comment: Re:Drift? (Score 1) 683

by Zak3056 (#46072921) Attached to: VC Likens Google Bus Backlash To Nazi Rampage

The summery itself mentioned this. These people are unable to pay rising property taxes....

California's Proposition 13 was designed to keep people from getting priced out of their homes. It's not lawful to reassess a property unless there is a change of ownership, or new construction. With this in mind, I'm not understanding how people can be priced out of a neighborhood they already live in due to rising property values.

Care to enlighten?

Comment: Re:Other Motives (Score 1) 275

by Zak3056 (#45674885) Attached to: Munich Open Source Switch 'Completed Successfully'

I'm guessing you, and many others for that matter, think that since they have their own distro, they must be coding themselves almost everything they use. This is simply not true. Simplified version is they just select what software they want to use and install it off the official Ubuntu repositories.

No, I don't think this at all, but I would expect the level of effort to be similar to something like CentOS. Probably more so, since if I understand correctly, one of their goals was to not be tied too tightly to their upstream distro, so they'll be faced with having to replace libblahblah.so.4 and all of its dependencies when they want to update packages foo, bar,and blee that upstream decided can't change for stability purposes.

I will say that your point about the work involved with maintaining a golden Windows image is a good one, though given that DLL hell is mostly a thing of the past (I won't comment on the shitty way that MS dealt with that, but it is more or less fixed) it's probably a lot less work than the above. Still, it is a point I hadn't considered.

Their claimed cost savings is something like $20M, so that pays for a LOT of overhead. But does it pay for enough?

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...