Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: I see your grandfather and raise you one grandfath (Score 1) 239

My grandfather manned a gun in a real open cockpit in WWI, flying in planes put together by wires, cloth and wood.

He took one of those wires through his chest in a crash landing, and lived to tell the tale, get married, have kids and eventully die mowing his grass one week after lung surgery because he was bullheaded, stubborn, Irishman [yeah runs in the family].

Comment: Wheel-well traveling (Score 1) 239

Step number 2 should be "bring a rebreather", rather than an oxygen tank. Rebreathers should be good for trans-pacific flights, 1.5-8 hour capacity, theoretically speaking.

Then again, Not sure how well they will work at 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. Nor if the sensors will know how to prevent you getting stoned out of your mind on too much oxygen (depending on the particular configuration of the rebreather). Still a rebreather would be my tank of preference for a wheel well trip.

But then if you can afford the $4000-$15,000+ for a rebreather, you could probably afford to hire a private jet.

Of course, you could probably save a bunch of money, if you plan on being a frequent-wheel-well-flyer.

Comment: Bullshit! (Score 1) 289

It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

Yes, you can opt for the 23 train that takes two partial days (not three full days - although there might be a possible package for that too), and yes you can buy a cabin ticket for almost $1100.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/...

No it's not faster to drive, and I've driven such distances. Cheaper? Perhaps. If you have more than one person, definitely. Again, I've done this, I prefer to drive, and often get a rental with full coverage, in case I decide to pull any Jackass stunts ( with full coverage, I can take the car to a demolition derby before returning and not have any worries). It's definitely not more relaxing, especially if you're trying to beat a train going 90.

Note: if going from Omaha to Miami you'll probably go first to Chicago, and may get put on the City Of New Orleans (made famous by the song), and go to , you guessed, it New Orleans, then to Jacksonville, and then to Orlando, and then to Miami, there might be 3 to 5 train changes there. Then there are other, slower routes, with more changes.

It may be more rewarding to drive.

Also, it should be noted that some train stations have TSA agents and you'll still have to deal twith them sometimes by train. If you go that route. Trains can be fun though, no need to turn off your electronics, and you'll likely have excellent signal strengths wherever possible, plus a lot more room to get up and walk around and socialize.

Comment: Re:And another pointless phone (Score 2) 146

by celtic_hackr (#46240053) Attached to: Nokia Turns To Android To Regain Share In Emerging Markets
Nokia is dead.
Long live Winkia.
There are way more uninformed, uncaring, give me something shiny, consumers out that will buy Nokia phones than there are tech savvy ones, if and only if they make something that gets advertising, and reviews, and sparks the consumer's interest.
But between LG, Samsung, and iPhone phones how are they going to do that?
However, the reviews are written by people who do actually pay attention and thus, the only great reviews Nokia is likely to see will be the ones they pay for. Nokia has to climb a Mt. Everest tech world to get back. That's what happens when you fire off a cannon in the high mountains and get blown off the mountain by then ensuing avalanche.
Nokia is so far gone, it'll take a mircale or billions and billions to rise again. That doesn't mean they can't scrape out a living with Andriod and Windows phones, as a bit player.

However, Nokia does have one advantage. They won't be paying the Microsoft Android Tax and will be able to undercut ever so slightly other phones with Android.

Comment: Or you could have drawn a better conclusion by rea (Score 1) 202

by celtic_hackr (#46106771) Attached to: 20% of Neanderthal Genome Survives In Humans
The article clearly indicates that the male offspring of Human-Neanderthal breedings might have had lower fertility or been sterile (because modern humans share very few sperm producing genes from Neanderthals). Hence it is far more likely that, Neanderthal males simply bred themselves out of existence by mating with human females, and the Neanderthalish male offispring of male Human to female Neanderthal matings never went anywhere. Thus the decreasing male Neanderthal ratio would force further matings of Neanderthal females with human males. Thus resulting in an eventual complete loss of male Neanderthals, and ever decreasing purity of Neanderthal females. Mystery solved.

Comment: Re:because (Score 1) 299

by celtic_hackr (#45578467) Attached to: Why People Are So Bad At Picking Passwords

So you're a male with a bushy beard and unkempt hair?

I also use a tireed system.
One password for all the sites I don't give a damn about security ( I actually care a little about my /. account ).
Then a family of passwords for ones I care about, but have no risk to my finances and personal data.
Then secure passwords for sites that could be damaging to me should they get cracked. I use a password safe, which is triple encrypted, so one would need to crack three passwords in succession all in excess of 15 characters in length, and utilizing mnemonics in a language which I invented, except the first password was generated by a random algorithm so it's not very mnemonic (it took a while to memorize).

But I have a bushy beard and unkempt blond hair. So I guess my passwords aren't very secure. If triple encrypted randomly generated passwords in lengths of greater than 15 characters (the second password to pepare the safe for opening is over 40 non-repeating characters in length in "words" which exist in no publicly known language on the planet with a 50 character "alphabet"), is not secure enough, we're all in serious trouble.

Or perhaps this is just another case of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics in a badly designed, implemented and fawlty conclusions study.

Although, I have no doubt many of my weak Internet passwrds are insecure, but easy to remember (for me, but register as strong or very strong on sites that actually give a damn).

Comment: Re:Hold up. (Score 1) 600

by celtic_hackr (#44890691) Attached to: Physicists Discover Geometry Underlying Particle Physics

You are confusing belief with theory. Theory is the basis of science. Belief is the realm of religion.

And if you are a two dimensional creature living in flatland, there is no way for you to directly prove that there exists a third dimension. Well unless some external force rotates you along an axis out of your two dimensional space.

But higher dimensions would be a very clean and intuitive solution to some of the paradoxes in Physics. Take for example the creation of a proton-anitproton pair, and deflecting them in opposite directions then once they are sufficiently far apart deflect one and watch the other react in >c time (ie reacts before the light from the other particle of the pair can reach said particle). How can one of the pair react to an action done on the other in less time than it takes light to travel the distance? If the pair are linked in a higher dimension space, it's possible for one to react by "seeing" in less than c time if the higher dimension has a shorter light path.

I'm not saying that is any sort of theory proposed by anyone, or that it is some sort of proof of higher dimensions. It is however a valid sort of topic for investigative experiment to seek out verifying the existence of higher dimensions. Since math and physics agree that higher dimensions are possible, it's much more logical to assume they do exist and try to prove that than to presume they don't exist and try to prove that.

All theory requires making an assumption. It's far easier to assume the positive and try tro prove that. Provided you have some reasonable approach to making attempts to prove.

Only if you admit there is no way to prove a hypothesis, should one say i don't believe in the existence of X. One can't prove the Existence or Nonexistence of God. There is no experiment we can imagine to do so. Therefore there is no reason to believe in God nor any reason not to believe in God. It's irrelevant, and has no place in science. It's like believing there are only three dimensions, because we can't "see" or "prove" a fourth. That in itself is an act of faith.

Science is all about trying to explain things, not saying well "we don't know". If math indicates the answer is due to higher dimensions, Okham's Razor would indicate the rational conclusion is there ARE higher dimensions. The simplest solution is usually the answer. Plus math is pretty good at predicting actual reality and the real world. Math indicates that if you add one apple to a pile of thirteen apples you will have fourteen physical apples. Threfore the realistic perspective is to conclude if math predicts greater than 3 dimensions, it's realistic to assume math is correct and there are actually more than three real dimensions.

Simply saying, "I/we don't know" is equivalent to saying, I/we refuse to speculate on the cause. It might as well be happening by magic. I'm not saying anything in the real world indicates there are higher dimensions, but to me, it is simply one more hypothesis that needs experimental proof and a valid research/theoretical topic.

Comment: Re:What do you mean by "can"? (Score 1) 259

by celtic_hackr (#44820929) Attached to: How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch

Actually, a digitally signed statement that can be authenticated as coming from a certain person, making use of the under penalty of perjury clause would be found enforceable by a US court. Especially if there is a notarized paper copy attesting to the truth of that statement.

I'm a Notary Public (among many other hats I wear), and take declarations from people and notarize documents which are legally acceptable for court use and are considered as binding as any testimony given under oath in a court, along with the manifest penalties of perjury. I don't know a way of doing a digital notarization. But it is certainly possible to take a declaration from a person, and notarize it. Many companies have notaries working for them, and could do this on a daily basis.

So, while I left out this detail in my original post, it's certainly feasible. As BranMan noted, however, a court could grant immunity from prosecution and then order you to put the message "back up". But, you see there is the rub. They would have to order it before hand to prevent the deadswitch from happening in the first place. Anything after the fact would just be damage control, and probably too late. Some users would probably notice it going away, and then you'd have some explaining to do. Plus the court would have to grant immunity for every day they force you to put it back up, because each day's statement is another violation that is separately prosecutable. The court order would have to be carefully worded.

But, like I said it's an option. Foolproof? Far from it. A country that doesn't respect it's own laws can't be trusted not to do criminal and illegal things to it's citizens, and the judges are plenty capable of getting pissed off by this act and finding some grounds to prosecute. So, like I said, not legal advice, and check with a lawyer, etc, etc, if you try this. I don't run anything where this would be an issue, so I have no stake in it.

Comment: Re: What do you mean by "can"? (Score 5, Insightful) 259

by celtic_hackr (#44809515) Attached to: How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch

You all seem to miss the important aspects here.

1) Most Americans I talk with, who know about these things happening, hate everything that is going on.
2) But a good number of people aren't paying attention to most of it. My wife, and most of my close family, being among them. And these people don't want to know, because they know they'll get upset and frustrated about it.
3) Among those who know and are disgusted, few complain about it except to friends. Why, because, most of this activity doesn't have an immediate impact on Americans ability to travel "freely", buy food, earn a comfortable living, have spendable money and the ability to spend it mostly how they want, raise a family without major restrictions, go to the church of their own choice, live in any neighborhood they can afford, eat what they what, and have entertainment they want. In other words daily life in the USA is fairly stable and unrestricted. People are comfortable. Until, the activities of the government get so overbearing that life is no longer comfortable, few will be willing to do anything about it.
4) The American Revolution didn't happen because the middle class people weren't comfortable anymore. Life was not really that bad in American Colonies back then. The American Revolution happened because the wealthy were feeling uncomfortable and the Crown was messing with their livlihoods.

Ergo, nothing is going to change, unless:
1) The government actions start having a serious impact on the upper classes, or
2) The government makes life so hard for the average citizen that they have no choice but to revolt. You can complain to your politicians till you're blue in the face and it likely won't change anything, for long. They will relent, for a while, and then try it again when they think you aren't looking. Search your feelings, you know this to be true., or
3) Enough people get fed up and actually start a new political party, that alters the landscape.

Comment: Re:What do you mean by "can"? (Score 1) 259

by celtic_hackr (#44809265) Attached to: How To Foil NSA Sabotage: Use a Dead Man's Switch

Well, there might be a way around it. Disclaimer: This is not legal advise, blah blah blah...

It's possible to post a legally binding statement, such as "Under penalty of perjury, I/we declare we have not been contacted by the government as of yesterday." Make this a daily post, that ages out and disappears at the end of the day. Then each day you have to re-post it. This would be an act of communication.

Now, this should work because, you cannot be forced to commit perjury, even by a court. I.E. you cannot be ordered to commit a crime, and perjury is a crime.

So, it should be workable, because if you get contacted by a secret court order, you can't commincate that without commiting a crime, but you can't put up a new statement, without committing a crime. Not puttinig the statement up is not an act of communication, but a lack of a communication. Sure the lack of a communication may imply the opposite, and the court could order you to put up a statement saying you haven't been contacted, but it can't order you to commit perjury.

"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...