Forgot your password?

Comment: There is a definition (Score 1) 3

by smitty_one_each (#47529585) Attached to: niwdoG's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . . .

. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything? The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country. Milady, thou dost protest too much, methinks. But that, at least, is in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 28

by smitty_one_each (#47529567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while
If you did not writer this reply below on the page, at least take this as constructive feedback:

Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.

Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with much of any of the positive message of the Word.
Also not in keeping: being a doormat, or tolerating injustice.
Is your opinion of the Bible and its teachings so simplistic and bloody-minded that you think, as a logical consequence, it should render human beings as doormats?

Comment: Re:240V is fairly common (Score 1) 252

by evilviper (#47523635) Attached to: Google Offers a Million Bucks For a Better Inverter

So the voltage drop is so rubbish, the utilities have to overcompensate...

To be clear, the voltage drop is not predominantly from too-small wiring, but from other appliances on the circuit drawing lots of power.

It's all relative. European 230V isn't even quite double the voltage of the US' ~125V, so you still get plenty of voltage drop, yourself. Someone else could come along and say 230V is rubbish, and everyone should have gone with 420V or so, when we both had the chance... Of course the US' lower voltage has the advantage in lesser risk of electrocution, too. The higher 60Hz frequency incidentally gave us better TV...

Even though the common NEMA outlets are 120V, and that's unlikely to ever change, the wall outlets don't need to for big loads... any house built in the past 50 years probably has 240V available at least the electric box, as they get 2 opposing phases of ~130V from the power company. Big appliances like electric stoves, electric water heaters, central air conditioning, and larger split-system heat pumps or large window air conditioning units, ALL are run on 240V here in the US.

Big industrial customers make up 75% of electrical demand, and they're different beasts all together. 277V (single-phase) is pretty common in US industry, particularly for lighting and what not, while big electric motors run on 3-phase 480V or so. Wherever higher voltages are beneficial, they're available.

Comment: Re:240V is fairly common (Score 1) 252

by evilviper (#47523493) Attached to: Google Offers a Million Bucks For a Better Inverter

rough service lights at designed to be handled roughly, and a heavier duty filament that is rated for a higher voltage allows it to be banged around a lot, not because you can hook it up closer to an electrical box

False dichotomy... it's designed for BOTH purposes.

The only time I've see > 125 V is when helping someone who bought a very cheap generator, that could easily have been out of spec for 240 too.

That's your own lack of perspective. I'm an EE, I went through the training and could get an electrician's licenses if I so desired. I do electrical work on my own properties pretty often. At work I'm primarily responsible for monitoring the incoming power for our hundreds of servers at our data centers and our office server rooms, etc., and designing and ordering upgrades as they are needed. I also have friends who are licensed and working electricians with lots of experience. etc.

I just tested the wall outlets in my nice new apartment, a good long distance from an electrical box, and I've got 124.1V everywhere right now. That's not abnormal at all, but completely typical.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 118

by FireFury03 (#47523391) Attached to: The Psychology of Phishing

The thing with my bank is that they don't send links in the email, and they often warn people that they won't. If there's something you should look at on your account, like a notification of bill pay or something, they simply say in the email "log into your online account" without providing a link. Most people have their bank bookmarked, so it's not like it's some kind of hardship.

It is some kind of a hardship because you still have to figure out which emails are legit - I'm not going to go log in to my bank every time I get a phishing email. When the vast majority of emails claiming to come from my bank are phishing mails, I'm pretty much guaranteed to miss legitimate ones unless the bank give me a trivial way to know that they're legit - MIME signed emails would allow that, but no banks seem to be interested.

Comment: Re: Eh? (Score 1) 116

by IamTheRealMike (#47522441) Attached to: Internet Explorer Vulnerabilities Increase 100%

Did YOU look at the graph? The bars are comparing all of 2013 against the first half of 2014 (obviously, as the second half is in the future). So the fact that IE already matched last year's record is where the 100% figure comes from - it's another way to say "doubled". Unless the second half of 2014 has a lower exploit rate then the conclusion will be correct.

Comment: Re:well (Score 4, Insightful) 118

by FireFury03 (#47521669) Attached to: The Psychology of Phishing

How are spammers successful so often? Simple, companies don't train people.

Or they train them with exactly the opposite of good behaviour.

Case in point: a few years ago my (at the time) bank sent me a marketing email (and yes, I confirmed it was legit). It wasn't from the bank's normal domain name and it contained lots of links to product descriptions that were also on an unusual domain. It said that I could verify it's authenticity because it contained the first half of my post code (i.e. something that's trivial for anyone to find out). I complained to the bank and the regulator - neither of them would do anything. The bank's excuse was that none of the pages linked from the email asked for my bank credentials so it was ok. This kind of thing trains people to expect that their bank will legitimately send them emails with clickable links that don't go to the bank's main website - the distinction between a link that asks for your credentials and one that doesn't is going to be lost on a lot of people.

Similarly, my Paypal account is currently suspended because they sent me an email telling me I needed to "verify my ID" (by sending them a scan of my driving licence)... this email went into the bin along with all the phishing emails asking me to "verify my paypal account", so when I didn't send them any ID they suspended the account.

Now, banks _do_ need to communicate with their customers, and I can't discount email as a viable method for them to communicate, but they really really need to start providing a sensible method for people to authenticate the legitimacy of the email - why the hell don't they MIME sign the messages, for example? At the moment they are sending out emails that are indistinguishable from phishing messages and then blaming the customer when they get phished.

User Journal

Journal: niwdoG 3

Journal by smitty_one_each
Playing the Godwin card when the topic is really the meaning, ownership, and usage of the symbol "Socialist" (by, for example, the U.S.S.R) is really kinda l4m3.
Yet, strangely, in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 28

by smitty_one_each (#47520961) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while

Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.

As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.

Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism would be akin to rejecting Pres'ent Obama when he refers to "my Christian faith". I don't know precisely what he means by that formulation, to look at his record, but I have to own the fact that, by his words, at least his lips are "saved". I'm certainly lacking the divine database to evaluate the claim, and thus must take the Nazis, Soviets, and Obama at face value.

Comment: Re:So, like all other rewards programmes? (Score 2) 75

by evilviper (#47520833) Attached to: Verizon's Offer: Let Us Track You, Get Free Stuff

I'm wondering WHY they're asking for permission. Seems ludicrous to do so when everyone's already giving it up for free. Making it legit?

They're collecting all that information, but they have to keep it under wraps. They have to get permission, like this, to be able to release (sell) all your vital information to 3rd parties.

The public and our representatives don't care about privacy, much. But after the free-for-all is on for a while, one case will break-through in the media... Something about a violent criminal buying the information from Verizon, using it to figure out exactly when little Jill comes home from school every day, and how long she's there by herself before her parents get home. When cases like that get publicized, then in a sudden tidal wave of popular think-of-the-children support, we get a bunch of privacy laws passed.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"