Forgot your password?

Comment: Government subsidy vs government monopoly (Score 2) 111

by A nonymous Coward (#47785399) Attached to: How Big Telecom Smothers Municipal Broadband

What galls me the most is the panty-wetting over a government-granted monopoly trying to maintain its government granted monopoly when that very same government tries to compete using taxpayer dollars as a subsidy.

The outrage should be against government involvement period. If governments didn't grant local monopolies, there would be real competition among the real companies, and no perceived need for the government competition which is only competitive because it has the taxpayer subsidy.

Comment: Re:Quit COMPLAINING about Comcast and buy them out (Score 1) 368

by A nonymous Coward (#47657105) Attached to: Comcast Drops Spurious Fees When Customer Reveals Recording

How can anyone pay lip service to free markets by regulating them?

The problem is that government regulates them as monopolies. They create the problem in the first lace by creating the monopoly, then offer to fix the problem by adding regulation. If it were a truly free market, without government sponsored monopolies, regulation wouldn't be nessary.

Look up the history of AT&T, how they were acting like a bully, but when the lawsuits began to have an effect and counter their actions, they begged the government to regulate them as a monopoly. If the government had just said no, they would have been brought to heel within a few years; the market would have worked.

It never ceases to amaze me how often I am amazed at people who cannot grasp this simple concept, that government specialized in correcting problems it created. Even that great social experiment, US alcohol prohibition from 1920-1933, was not ended by repealing the prohibition, but by changing outright prohibition to regulation.

Comment: Re:Safety Deposit Box (Score 2) 208

by selectspec (#47275007) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Bequeath Sensitive Information?

This is by far the best approach out of all of the recommendations. Obviously, sending paper documents (or USB drives) via overnight delivery is relatively immune to intercept, but what if you relatives leave the documents out in an unsafe area? The best place is a safe deposit box, along with any portable valuables (nice watch, jewelry, etc). You can arrange in your will to have your estate trustee then disseminate the contents.

User Journal

Journal: These are the things in my head at night 7

Journal by Daniel Dvorkin

Then-PFC, now-SGT Bergdahl may in fact have deserted his post. There are certainly credible accusations to that effect, and if so, then he should be tried and convicted for the crime. But it's a whole lot easier to investigate those charges with him here, and we don't let the Taliban mete out justice for us.

Comment: Re:How fast is the data transmitted? (Score 3, Insightful) 202

by selectspec (#47128829) Attached to: Scientists Find Method To Reliably Teleport Data

The problem with the articles is that they use a misleading term "information". The quantum information is transmitted instantaneously. However, quantum information is not the same as classical information. Classical observers at either end of the experiment cannot set the quantum information that is transmitted. Therefore the no-communication theorem is not violated. Superluminal communication of classical information (what you and I think of as data) is not possible. The best way to think of this (as another slashdot user pointed out) is that you have a random number generator at two points separated by a distance. Both points generate the same random number regardless of how far away from each other they happen to be in space.

The practical application of this is not transmitting classical data faster than the speed of light (as that is not possible.) However, it could be used for an encryption mechanism that is unbreakable. This is done by taking the random numbers generated and using them to encrypt classical data, which is then transmitted by conventional means (radio etc) and then decrypting on the other end with the same set of random numbers. Nobody can decrypt the data unless they have the other entangled particle of which there can only be one.

+ - Warm up the Nobel Prize: Data Teleportation->

Submitted by selectspec
selectspec (74651) writes "Researches in the Netherlands are claiming to have achieved quantum teleportation of data over a distance of 3 meters without any data loss. They plan on upgrading the experiment to distance of a kilometer. This would prove the famous "spooky action at a distance" theory of quantum mechanics. In laymen terms, this is moving information over distances faster than the speed of light, or rather instantly. Practical applications include phone calls across the global without delays, the end of bandwidth-delay-product issues in networking, and controlling rovers on Mars in real time, not to mention that Mr. Snowden and his former friends can't snoop in on this conversation."
Link to Original Source

Comment: The simple story (Score 1) 1

by A nonymous Coward (#47042213) Attached to: The US vs. Europe: Freedom of Expression vs. Privacy

The right to privacy is unimplementable. It basically requires hiding the truth on a massive individualized scale, and cannot be done.

If one were to attempt hiding one or a few particular truths, it might be successful for a short while, but it would be like the Soviets airbrushing former leaders out of pictures. The truth will resurface sooner or later.

And as soon as you mandate the right to be forgotten, every punk and his dog will want to protect their privacy too -- why should it be reserved only for the rich and powerful? Not only will the resultant holes in truth became ever more blatant, but the only way to hide the truth is manpower intensive, just like airbrushing people out of all those pictures. You can't automate it -- not only would it miss indirect references and intentional subterfuge, it will erase false positives and raise the ire of its false victims.

I am watching this EU court ruling with a metric boatload of popcorn. Most legislation is pretty clueless when it comes to unintended consequences, btu this one is spectacularly so.

Comment: Re:Correction (Score 1) 2

by A nonymous Coward (#47041673) Attached to: Spanish Conquest May Have Altered Peru's Shoreline

Dang, I was going to say the same thing.

Close to the same argument I use with people who rail against dams. What about beavers? If humans throw logs and rocks and mud across a stream just like beavers, is that unnatural or natural, good or bad, politically correct or not? What if they make it out of boards instead of cut down trees? What is it's teh exact same size, but concrete? How about half the size in concrete?

Comment: Re:Congressional fix? (Score 2) 217

by MacAndrew (#46849427) Attached to: How the FCC Plans To Save the Internet By Destroying It

Well, we'll have to differ then. The free market is an ideal, but a self-executing free market is a rarity. No regulation (or no government) is a nice jingle but there will always be something. (Is anyone saying more regulation/govenrment for its own sake? No, but they can be nasty side effects.) It's the law itself. Even the criminal law is a form of regulation—especially unlikely to be banned—and yes amending, sometimes repealing, it can improve it. That said, I do sympathize with the libertarian perspective (versus dogma) and think the government can be seen as just another ... corporation. Which means, regulate with care, not never.

"Robber baron" just sounds cool. I don't think we have classic monopolies like oil and steel, but less the landscape is pretty messed up, and getting worse so with the repeal of Glass-Steagal and so on..... Just my 2 against $2 trillion.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau