Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Abolish marriage solves the problem. (Score 2) 562

by borcharc (#46671959) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Who said that that new definition of "civil union" has to be limited to two people?

But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend.

A horse, bed or imaginary friend can not enter into a contract. My dog, who I love very much, is incapable of entering into a contract, she lacks the understanding of her actions and I am basically her legal guardian because of her inability to manage her own affairs independently. I signed up for this job with that clearly understood, it would be an abuse of my duty as her guardian to force her into a contract that she is incapable of understanding. Just the same for my desk, who I spend almost as much time with as my wife, can not enter into a contract with me. My desk can not read, understand a spoken topic and the consequences of a decision (same for my dog). On the other hand, two adult humans or groups of them who love each other can clearly consent to such an agreement. Its not our place to judge the basic competence of other adult humans to enter into agreements with others similarly situated.

Comment: Re:The new Hitlers (Score 1) 562

by borcharc (#46671863) Attached to: Was Eich a Threat To Mozilla's $1B Google "Trust Fund"?

Marriage is an ancient rite (not a right) that for many is part of their religious practice. Why is the State a party to my contract with my wife? Why does the state provide the language that can not be modified in this contract? I oppose the current incarnation of the gay marriage effort because they support the status quo. They selectively apply "freedom to marry" only to gays, when in fact many other groups are affected, in some cases imprisoned. Marriage is an issue of freedom of association, I choose to enter into a contract with my wife. It should be our choice to decide what the terms of that contract are. The government should have nothing to do with marriage or define the terms of a contract between two (or more) adults. People wanting to get married should be able to have a religious ceremony, should they choose, as their way of entering into this agreement and those who dont should be able to go to and template out an aggrement that suits them including a pre-determined disoulation system that does not involve the courts, just like any other contract. They beg the state for permission to engage in a fundamental freedom. If they focused their efforts on personal freedom, including anyone marrying whoever is willing to agree, even groups or siblings, then that is their right to choose to associate and enter into a contract, something the state infringes on, a worthy battle. They support the suppression of fundamental rights by not demanding them, but asking for an exception from the states tyranny on their fundamental rights for their group for this small item.

Comment: Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 2) 182

by borcharc (#46546801) Attached to: Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

That does not mean you can not work out effective deals where everyone wins. If I peer with you in several geographic locations, it takes load off your backbone links, lowering your cost (L3 example). If I am a small operator peering in one area, an arrangement could be worked out where my prefixes are only advertised in the region through the use of bgp communities, reducing the other providers backbone costs. This is effectively what should have been done with netflix. L3 taking this issue up is a major game changer though, a old school tier 1 who peers with no one is fighting for capacity on several eyeball networks, rules be a changing...

Comment: Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 4, Insightful) 182

by borcharc (#46546627) Attached to: Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry.

This model is outdated, in the good old days networks had a mix of eyeballs and content, now we have completely separate eyeball and content networks. This is mostly the result of the cable/telco monopolies. In the new normal, traffic will never be balanced. I am paying comcast for internet access, it is their responsibility to provide be high quality service. In order to accomplish that they should have an open peering policy and connect at all public exchanges. If the large providers don't get on board with more open peering policies they are going to eventually run into a consumer or small NSP brought anti-trust lawsuit.

Comment: Re:The Day After (Score 1) 878

by borcharc (#46508111) Attached to: Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"

I disagree with your assertion. Why can't an interceptor system not address a massive first strike? Are you current on missile defense? The currently deployed ground based midcourse defense system works, its just a matter of rolling out sufficient launch facilities and interceptors. The US has between 30-200 operational ground based midcourse interceptors operational. If we rolled these systems out to deal with a massive first strike, we would likely have good success if it were needed. We should continue to develop this technology, rome wasn't built in a day.

Comment: Re:They're scared they won't be able to. (Score 2) 878

by borcharc (#46507499) Attached to: Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"

Why do people keep saying that only a 100% effective missile defense system is acceptable? Why is 50% not acceptable? MIRV ICBM's are no different for launch and mid stage interceptors, the thing we put all of our effort into. The Russians have ~350 ICBM's, we should have 5x as many interceptors that are designed for each stage. These can be capable on subs launched ICBM's as well, its just a matter of investment. I would be very happy to have a even a 20% success rate from a missile defense system in an all out attack. Thats a lot of people, equipment, and industrial capacity saved.

On the topic of MIRV's, we gave our up to appease Russia but they backed out of returning the gesture. Its time we bring them back, they were an effective deterrent.

Comment: Re:And the US could turn Russia into vapor (Score 5, Interesting) 878

by borcharc (#46506915) Attached to: Russian State TV Anchor: Russia Could Turn US To "Radioactive Ash"

This risk is outdated. With the amount of bond buying that the US Federal Reserve has engaged in over the past few years buying all of the debt held by Russia and China combined would not even make a dent should they desire to sell it all, the FED and other nations (Japan) will happily buy. Russia's $100 billion and even China's $1.2T are small potatoes compared to the $16T+ the fed and friends have printed with little consequence as of yet.

Russia relies on Europe energy sales for 25% of its GDP, Europe relies on Russia to provide 6% of its energy. Sanctions targeting this will hurt Russia very badly and they know it. They have been strong arming Europe for years on energy, delaying their economic recovery. Its time the tables were turned.

Comment: Re:The importance of a strong military (Score 1) 498

by borcharc (#46449327) Attached to: Ukraine May Have To Rearm With Nuclear Weapons Says Ukrainian MP

Ukraine has a strong military, for reasons I can not explain the media has been representing them as not being a match for Russia. Raw equipment and manpower does not win a conflict. There are far more factors to consider. Russia has a total military strength of ~775k. Of that 57% of them are 1 year conscripts (publicly pledged not to be used in combat last year).The other 334k professional soldiers and officers (how many do you think are required to keep the conscripts under control), what percentage do you really think they can commit to Ukraine's 129k+ personal force plus their 1 million reserves (who all had 18-24 months service). Do you think Russia will abandon the defense of the entire country to invade Ukraine? Because thats what it would take. Do you really think Russia can call up their reserves when draft dodging and desertion have them 225k men under their legally required minimum strength? Perhaps thats the plan spread Russia thin, militarily and politically.

Comment: Re:Go wireless (Score 1) 324

Find someone who can get 50mb+ cable/dsl that is near your subdivision and put up a mesh network connecting the homes with that site. Get a VPS that is geographically near you or in the normal path for your internet traffic with sufficient ip addresses that you tunnel back to your subdivision. Instant ISP, the cable/dsl guys will just see tons of VPN traffic and never know....

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.