Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Good luck with that (Score 1) 271

by Safety Cap (#47370701) Attached to: Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job

Some of the stupid interviewing criteria that my colleagues and me [sic] had to deal with boggles my mind.

Ahh, reminds me of the Angry Aussie and his response to pointless interview questions:

For instance, there was the putz I had to see this week who thought he was being really clever. It seems as though someone gave him the book of Microsoft interview questions and he was eager to show off his new "knowledge". This style of interviewing gives you abstract questions that have no relationship whatsoever to the work you'll be doing. Or to the real world.

Proponents say they're trying to see how creatively you can think. Normal humans say it's a waste of time.

Comment: Re:Come on Google (Score 1) 71

by Safety Cap (#47363865) Attached to: Google Kills Orkut To Focus On YouTube, Blogger and Google+

For the random people that use Orkut like others use Facebook, it really is not a lot of time to figure out what to do with potentially gigabytes of information. That holds particularly true for anyone that is not technically savvy.

How long does it take to slide over to Google Takeout and download all of your data?

A few minutes? An hour?

When Goog crushed Wave, I downloaded all my stuff in a matter of minutes. Couldn't really do much with it, but it lowered my White Hot Rage down to Red.

Comment: How to Fail (Score 1) 532

  1. 1. Rewrite your code
  2. 2. Fix all the bugs you introduced that didn't exist in the original
  3. 3. (and ongoing) Run into all the edge cases that were discovered and solved years ago in the original code.
  4. 4. Spend tons of manhours and tie up your talent pool rewriting just to get where you are now instead of adding new features.
  5. 5. Embrace your FAIL

Comment: Re:False Warnings? (Score 2) 135

The alternative I would like to see would be to forbid the company from doing business for a time equivalent of what the prison sentence would be.

Imagine if the US wasn't bought and paid for? If an oil company poisoned the gulf like what happened with the Deepwater Horizon (11 dead and massive damage to the fishing industry and the environment), the US government would simply pull its charter and be done with it: that company would cease to exist.

All the other corporations would thereafter straighten up and fly right, lest the same thing happen to them. (Or they would try to buy the government and defang it like it is now).

Comment: Re:Except, of course, they have to prove you can (Score 5, Insightful) 556

He should have remained silent. Being a lawyer he should have known that.

He must be a pretty shite lawyer. (Hopefully he isn't a criminal defense lawyer, because then he really IS a shite lawyer.)

FTFA:

“During his postarrest interview with State police Trooper Patrick M. Johnson, the defendant stated ... ‘[e]verything is encrypted and no one is going to get to it.’ The defendant acknowledged that he was able to perform decryption.”

What a dumb-bumble-fark. He deserves to burn for bragging/taunting the cops.

Rules for Talking to Cops

ONE
Don't talk to cops, except what you are legally required to say (you must ID yourself, to whatever extent your state's laws specify)
TWO
The only thing that should come out of your piehole from the time your are arrested (especialy during any "post-arrest 'let's get the suspect to incriminate himself' interview") are the words: "I wish to remain silent and I want a lawyer."
TREE
STFU until you get a lawyer
FOUR
Remember that Everything you say will be used to burn you. Cops can lie and get away with it, and if you lie to a cop, you're fried. Do not believe anything they say, and don't try to talk your way out of it because you'll lose.
NaN
Getting (and following) legal advice from random people on the internets is about the stupidest thing you could do.

Comment: Re:I hope they get whatever they can for them (Score 4, Insightful) 232

by Karl Cocknozzle (#47231985) Attached to: US To Auction 29,656 Bitcoins Seized From Silk Road

Let me blow your mind right now: all currency is fake. That's what makes it currency instead of bartered goods.

This. Times a million

Every currency (Yes, Virginia, even gold-standard currencies) are completely fake and arbitrary. The difference between fake and arbitrary fiat currency and fake and arbitrary gold-standard currency is exactly one layer of abstraction, because the "value" of gold is in itself pretty arbitrary. It is somewhat rare, but it's "value" is completely generated by the human mind. Which is actually for the best--can you imagine how high the price of gold would be if it was actually useful for something besides making jewelry and helping Fox News scam old people out of their savings with terrible gold investment opportunities?

Humans assigned "value" to gold because it was rare-enough to avoid hyper-inflation, but common enough that you didn't have to worry about deflation. And that worked just fine for a few tens of thousands of years... until there were too many humans for the world supply of gold to adequately represent new wealth and value as they're created.

If a more numerous race of aliens had evolved on this planet they might have assigned value to blades of grass, pebbles, or certain kinds of trees in a similar matter based on their own needs.

Which is why the entire "gold standard" argument (that "our money is fake and worthless") is so stupid: Yes, it is fake and worthless. So is all other money, everywhere--the value comes from the perception. So it doesn't matter if its "backed by gold" or "backed by Jell-O Pudding pops" the fact is, the value is based totally on the perception of value of something. With fiat currency, it's the perception of the value of what you can buy, with "gold-standard" currency it's the perception of the value of the gold. But neither has any "real" value without that perception.

Comment: Bose's leans into a corner... and jump obstacles (Score 5, Interesting) 243

by xeno (#47191401) Attached to: New Car Can Lean Into Curves, Literally

A couple of others have mentioned the ~2007 work that Bose did in active suspension, but nothing really clarifies the idea like pictures or video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSi6J-QK1lw
Leaning into a curve is one thing, but At 1:40 the car jumps a curb-size obstable. Nice.

I'm not sure it's worth the engineering complexity versus standard sway bars (for a typical diver),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_liGnV3PTiQ
but Bose's system (and Mercedes') sure as hell is cool.

And while we're on the topic of making unreasonably large cars more agile than they ought to be, I'm still pretty happy with Volvo's 4C system and oversized sway bars on a 7yo S80 V8 -- switching to "advanced" it behaves like a fat WRX or that pudgy football player you didn't think could move that fast, and in "comfort" mode it hunches down *evenly* about 6-8cm in hard curves... all with just plain old leverage, a few poly bushings, and electromagnets around the ferro-oil filled shocks. Simple is good.

Comment: Re:Culpability at the Top (Score 4, Informative) 307

Why did GM write into their bail-out a few years ago the clause that they cannot be held responsible for malfeasance which occurred prior to that bail out?

Makes me sick thinking about it.

GM's "bailout" was actually a managed bankruptcy with the terms pre-arranged, and bankruptcy in most US states incldues the discharge of liability, not just debts. It is done that way so creditors can't short-circuit the bankruptcy system and just "Wait to sue" until after you're out of bankruptcy protection.

This liability discharge is one of the main features of bankruptcy. It is why the company that polluted the Elk River in West Virginia (leaving the 2/3 of the state without safe drinking water--some of them to this day) declared bankruptcy in short order after the incident--they knew they had no possible defense against the legal onslaught that was coming, and their executives (who were owed sizable bonuses--coal executives really rake it in) wanted to make sure they filed for bankruptcy BEFORE anybody filed suit, because if a suit was pending when they filed bankruptcy that party could go to court to stop bonuses and incentive pay owed to executives from being payed out. Because if the company was facing a bankruptcy judge and had an already-filed suit for billions in damages he would never (EVER) approve bonus payments to executives and would probably listen pretty favorably to a creditor who insisted the executives not be able to loot the place ahead of their judgement.

Comment: Re:Just one detail they've overlooked (Score 1) 355

Well, the vandalism aspect can be "solved" by the simple means of on board video cameras. And since entry to the taxicab would most like require some form of ID prior to the doors unlocking, you could be pretty darn sure as to the identity of the passenger. And the "official" rational for the camera? Why, it's to gauge the customer's reactions to the advertisements. After all, that lets the system present advertisements that the customer finds more receptive.

George Orwell didn't go far enough. Google is correcting that mistake.

...Because on-board video cameras can't be vandalized, of course! And it may be the case that you have to identify yourself before the door opens on the car, true, but that doesn't stop a vandal from hopping in one of the other doors and damaging the car after you've identified yourself... Or they could just steal your mobile phone and summon a robot car with the robot car app...

Trust me: If it exists, there's a way to break it without getting caught. My first instinct is to use the technique used on british speed cameras: Kitchen plastic wrap strapped tight across the camera lens. If done correctly, the camera doesn't look "broken" to a casual observer, but this effectively renders images from the camera a useless, blurry, translucent mess.

Comment: Re:News at 11 (Score 1) 97

Random groupings of people say bad things about major international deal without any supporting evidence.

Seriously, the best they can do is "The language used is vague"? How about doing their own analysis instead of just pointing out that the documents aren't perfect?

I think the point is that the language is intentionally vague to conceal the meaning from an uncritical public. If critics of the agreements say they contain language that "could allow" certain bad things to happen, proponents can smear-them as "conspiracy theorists" to discount their point of view, and a pliant, lapdog corporate media will lap it up, eagerly.

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...