Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 1) 250

by TapeCutter (#47728217) Attached to: UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime
Jebus, have none of you actually read Orwell? What you wrote is actually a pretty good example of "circumstantial evidence".

A "thought crime" is where certain thoughts are illegal. My favorite example is from Christopher Hitchens @4:00 - 4:30, worth watching the whole speech.

The defining feature of thought crime is that there is no physical act, no physical manifestation of a crime, just an "illegal thought", accessing a web site or making a speech is an action, it doesn't qualify. Of course in the book, the only way to really find out what Winston was thinking was to torture him with his greatest fear, a live rat chewing on his face.1984 is a precautionary tale about power and control, and there is no more "totalitarian" form of control than the ability to control what people think. You really ought to read it before trying to redefine the terminology. ;)

Comment: Re:Poor quote. (Score 2) 250

by TapeCutter (#47727889) Attached to: UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime
Please go a reread 1984. That is not the definition of a "thought crime". Also, if you're from the US I think you would be surprised at the sex that's available on late night broadcast TV in the UK. As with many other nations in the commonwealth, the UK draws the line at depicting certain acts of violence, particularly when it's associated with sex. Depicting acts of fornication or buggery is not illegal, in fact talking and joking about them in explicit terms on national TV seems to be almost compulsory. .

Comment: The people of the UK. (Score 3, Insightful) 250

by TapeCutter (#47727819) Attached to: UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime
1. It's not him silly, it's "the people of the UK", who are you to claim immunity from the democratic will of society, where does this immunity end?
2. Your overreacting to something the head cop said "could" be considered illegal. I think if you dig a bit deeper than the click bait headline you'll find his real message was more along the lines of - "Yes we all know it's shocking, but please stop reacting as intended by those who perpetrated this act". There's also a cultural difference in the way the UK justice system operates, as a general rule UK public prosecutors are nowhere near as eager to be associated with frivolous convictions and "plea bargaining" as their US counterparts seem to be. UK society in general is less tolerant of "anti-social behaviour", it's their idea of "keeping the peace" and it works rather well for "the people of the UK".

I don't give a damn. My portion of society isn't affected by those threats, and thus those who might consider attempting to threaten me under inapplicable jurisdictions are welcome to go fuck themselves. Apparently, you're invited to the latter party. Would you care for some lube?

Yeah right, you tell 'em how it is internet tough guy, lol.

Disclaimer, not the AC, who btw has as much right to his privacy as the Foley family does to theirs.

Comment: Re:Benjamin Franklin said once (Score 1) 250

by TapeCutter (#47727663) Attached to: UK Police Warn Sharing James Foley Killing Video Is a Crime
Excellent rant! Personally I don't care to have those sort of images in my head, kinda like - once you've seen one uncensored holocaust documentary you've seen them all. And you're spot on with the propaganda claim, the new warlord in Iraq would like nothing better than the west to start bombing the shit out of Iraqi cities because the obvious result would be a flood of eager new recruits. As someone commented recently "it's the oldest recruiting method known to man".

I do think some think some images should be illegal and actively censored, pre-pubescent kiddy porn, snuff films, stuff that is abhorrent to a sane person and constitutes a grave criminal act. Such images are in fact a very deep invasion of the victim's, and their family's, privacy. The beheading video is different in that it is an "act of war" specifically designed provoke a knee-jerk military response, the executioner was almost certainly chosen for his UK accent and would have been told - "Cut his head off, or lose your's".

At the end of the day all one can really say about this kind of military censorship is that "The first casualty of war is truth". Old Ben was a politician preaching to the colonial choir, the quote is an obvious attempt to boost the morale of those who would do the real fighting. Probably the bravest thing he did was fly a kite in a thunderstorm, that feat took real scientific balls!

Comment: Re:We get cancer because we have linear DNA (Score 1) 163

by jd (#47726213) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

That's easy to fix. If a cell has not just the existing error correction codes but also digital ones as well, then mutagenic substances (of which there are a lot) and telemere shortening can be fixed. Well, once we've figured out how to modify the DNA in-situ. Nanotech should have that sorted soonish.

The existing error correction is neither very good nor very reliable. This is a good thing, because it allows evolution. You don't want good error correction between generations. You just want it in a single person over their lifespan, and you want it restricted so that it doesn't clash with retrotranspons and other similar mechanisms. So, basically, one whole inter-gene gap/one whole gene protected by one code. Doable. You still need cell death - intercept the signal and use a guaranteed method.

Comment: Exploit that which you cannot defeat (Score 1) 163

by jd (#47726171) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells

Here, in the year Lemon Meringue, we decided to solve the problem once and for all.

Instead of trying to kill cancer, we hijack its techniques. We start by having nanocomputers in the vaccuelles of each brain cell. These keep a continuous backup copy of the state of the brain up to death. Cancers disable the hard limit on cell duplication that cannot otherwise be avoided. By using the techniques of cell-devouring microphages, the cancer "consumes" the old cells and replaces them with new ones. They can't spread anywhere else, because that's how the cancer is designed to spread. Once the body has been fully replaced, the cancer is disabled. The brain is then programmed by the nanocomputers and the remaining cells are specialized by means of chemical signal.

This does result in oddly-shaped livers and three-handed software developers, but so far this has boosted productivity.

Comment: Re:It's not a kernel problem (Score 1) 667

by jd (#47726057) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

The free market didn't provide alternatives. The free market created Microsoft and the other monopolies. Adam Smith warned against a free market.

The majority do not create alternatives, either. The majority like things to not change. The familiar will always better the superior in the marketplace.

Alternatives are created by small groups of people being disreputable, commercially unproductive and at total odds with the consumer. These alternatives will typically take 7-14 years to develop. Adoption will typically reach peak after another 7-14 years. By the 30th year after first concept, the idea will be "obvious" and its destiny an "inevitable consequence" of how things are done.

In reality, it takes exceptional courage and a total disregard for "how things are done". 7-14 years with guaranteed losses is not how the marketplace works. Even thinking along those lines is often met with derision and calls of "Socialism!" by the market. No, real inventors are the enemy of the free market.

If you want a Linux desktop, you must forgo all dreams of wealth. You must subject yourself to the abject poverty that is the lot of an inventor in a market economy, or move to somewhere that supports the real achievers.

Comment: The problem isn't X. (Score 1) 667

by jd (#47725933) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

The problem is corruption. OSDL were working on a Linux desktop environment, but a key (financial) figure in the organization worked hard to kill off success and left around the time the unit went bankrupt. Several organizations they've been linked to have either gone belly up or have suffered catastrophic failure.

I won't name names, no point. What is the point is that such people exist in the Linux community at all, parasites that destroy good engineering and good work for some personal benefit of their own.

X is not great, but it's just a specification. People have developed Postscript-based GUIs using it. It's merely an API that you can implement as you like (someone ported it to Java) and extend as you like (Sun did that all the time). The reference implementation is just that. Interoperability of just that set of functions used by Glib/Gtk and Qt would give you almost all the key software.

Alternatively, write a GUI that has a port of those three libraries. You could use Berlin as a starting point, or build off Linux framebuffers, or perhaps use SDL, or write something unique. If it supports software needing those libraries, then almost everything in actual use will be usable and almost everything written around X in the future will also be usable. If what you write is better than X, people will switch.

Comment: Re:Nobody else seems to want it (Score 1) 667

by jd (#47725801) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Binary drivers exist and are loadable so long as they are properly versioned.

Block drivers can always use FUSE.

Automatic builders can recompile a shim layer with new kernels (or even the git tree version), automatic test harnesses or a repurposed Linux Test Project can validate the shim. You don't need to validate the driver for everykernel, if it's totally isolated from the OS and worked before then it'll remain working.

Automated distributors can then place the binaries in a corporate yum/apt repository.

What has an ABI got to do with it? Only gets in the way of writing clean code.

Comment: Why? (Score 1) 667

by jd (#47725719) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

The commands to the bus don't change.
The commands sent to the hardware don't change.
The internal logic won't change.

That leaves the specific hooks to the OS and the externally visible structures.

Nobody is insane enough to use globals directly and structures are subject to change without notice. So external stuff will already be isolated.

If the hardware is available for any two of HyperTransport, PCI Express 2.x, VME/VXI or one of the low-power busses used on mobile hand-warmers, err, smart devices, then the actual calls to the bus hardware will be compartmentalized or go through an OS-based abstraction layer.

So 95% of a well-written driver is OS-agnostic and the remaining 5% is already is isolated.

So either drivers are very badly written (which is a crime against sanity) or the hardware vendor could place the OS-dependent code in its own DLL at bugger-all cost to them. Since the OS-dependent code has nothing trade secret in it, they can publish the source for the shim at no risk. Since the shim isn't the driver, there's no implication of support for OS' they don't know or understand. It's not their problem what the shim is used for.

Everyone's happy. Well, happier. The companies don't get harassed, the Linux users get their drivers, Microsoft gets fewer complaints about badly-written drivers killing their software. It's not open, it's not supported, but it's good enough.

Comment: Re:Blame them, not Heartbleed (Score 1) 86

by plover (#47724497) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

Heartbleed may be a huge IT problem, but you seem to have forgotten that health care system decisions are not made by IT security managers. They are run by demi-gods that we mere mortals are instructed to refer to as "doctors." And the doctor's prioritized view of IT is this:

#1. Be Available. I may need this system right this second in order to save a life. I don't care if it's my kid's Nintendo DS, I'm telling you it might save a life.
#2. Stay The Hell Out Of My Way. Don't interrupt me when I'm saving someone's life. And you don't know when that is; just that if you're interrupting me, it probably is now.
#3. Give Me Exactly What I Want. For I am the giver of life and death, and you must respect me.

So unless a problem is currently causing them an outage (so not just any old problem, it has to be causing an actual outage), it won't rise to the level of severity that says "skip all quality control processes and immediately patch this."

It doesn't matter if the router is vulnerable to hacking. It doesn't matter if a hacker who pwns the router could brick it. It doesn't matter if he is stealing patient records. Those things aren't interfering with #1, 2, or 3. So follow procedures, deploy it in a lab, go through testing and QA, and install it only on Wednesday afternoons when the hospital admins are all on the back nine.

Comment: Advise (Score 3, Insightful) 493

I wish when I was starting out, I knew how idiotic it would sound to tell everyone what I wished I knew when I was starting out. Cause, man, does it sound stupid.

Come children, let me pretend to be wise by telling your really obvious things I was not aware of when I was your age.

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0

Working...