Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Demanding "safe" vaccines (Score 1) 584

by darkmeridian (#46747925) Attached to: Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

It's not even that she wants vaccines that are proven to be 100% safe with no side-effects. She wants vaccines that she thinks is 100% safe with no side-effects. There is already significant medical evidence that vaccines are worth the cost-benefit analysis but she just thinks that doctors and big pharma are horrible folk who just want to rip her off.

Comment: Re:McCarthy the Playmate? (Score 3, Insightful) 584

by darkmeridian (#46747889) Attached to: Jenny McCarthy: "I Am Not Anti-Vaccine'"

The problem is that she's the face of the issue. She is not going on TV saying, "I'm Jenny the Playboy Playmate." She's saying, "I'm Jenny the mother who just knows that vaccines aren't what doctors say they are all cracked up to be." That makes her more pernicious than a crackpot who publishes a report saying that thimerosol causes autism. Basically, she's the Bill Nye the Science Guy of the anti-vaccination crowd.

Comment: Re:But they can't build anything (Score 1) 218

by darkmeridian (#46679757) Attached to: Why No One Trusts Facebook To Power the Future

Google doesn't have to make software in order to make money. About half of its revenue comes from advertising. All Google has to do is to grow the number of consumers who use the Internet. As long as Gmail, Google Search, and Android keep people using Google to search, then Google can sell ads, and then Google can make money. AdSense and AdWords are revolutionary. It's so easy to buy and sell ads using the Google system. The bottom line is to force the advance of Internet capable systems.

That's why Google fostered Android. You can hate Android, but you can't deny that it increased the number of mobile Internet devices, and that most of those users rely upon Google services. Chrome made web-browsing more consistent, which meant that webmasters could make better pages, which meant more advertising. So Google doesn't care who makes the smart phones so long as smart phones are being made.

Comment: Re:Don't think custom domains were his problem (Score 1) 448

by darkmeridian (#46100827) Attached to: Developer Loses Single-Letter Twitter Handle Through Extortion

The problem with customs domains is that it created another attack vector that no one really thinks about. The attacker hijacked his mx records and directed his email away. Up until now, I was sitting pretty thinking that I was safe because I used LastPass to create a long fucking Google Apps password and Google Authenticator for two-factor security. I never considered the notion that someone could hijack my mx records. I'm going over to namecheap to enable two-factor authentication.

Comment: Re:It might be an unpopular opinion... (Score 1) 822

by darkmeridian (#46087185) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Does Edward Snowden Deserve?

Wake up. The rest of the world spies on our industries as well. I'm not even talking about China I'm talking about. Read the Wiki articles on the topic. The French are our allies but are also pretty big industrial spies. It's also old news that the NSA spies for American industry. When Boeing was bidding on a Saudi deal, the other side offered a bribe. The NSA picked up on it and disclosed it to the Saudis.

Comment: Re:Maybe the Patent Office will notice (Score 3, Informative) 292

by darkmeridian (#45656073) Attached to: JPMorgan Files Patent Application On 'Bitcoin Killer'

That's not what first-to-file means. Even if Bitcoin is never patented, the Patent Office can still (and should) reject the JP Morgan application based on the Bitcoin prior art. First-to-file means that if JP Morgan files first, the Bitcoin people cannot obtain priority over JP Morgan, as JP Morgan filed first despite inventing second.

Comment: Re:Maybe replace with (Score 2) 195

by darkmeridian (#45346083) Attached to: The Feathered Threat To US Air Superiority

The problem hasn't been one with material sciences. The Air Force had wanted to preserve the "through-the-canopy" ejection option in the T-38, where the crew is shot through the canopy during the eject sequence. This makes low-level ejections faster because you don't have to wait for the canopy to separate before firing the ejection motors. However, this clearly makes it harder to make the canopy resistant to bird strikes. Other TTC systems destroy the canopy with embedded det cord but in a high-speed trainer, you probably are okay with a regular ejection sequence.

Comment: Everyone's missing the point! (Score 3, Informative) 180

by darkmeridian (#44742923) Attached to: Patent Suit Leads To 500,000 Annoyed Software Users

Apple isn't complaining that it costs $2.4 million a month to work around the patent or that there are 500,000 complaints after the workaround was instituted. The patent-holder brought up these facts to show that their patent should carry a hefty royalty payment because Apple could not work around them--not only do you have to pay $2.4 million a month you also have to lower quality to the extent where you have 500,000 complaints even after paying that money.

Comment: Re:Accountability (Score 4, Informative) 524

Did you read the decision? It sounds like you based your comment on a quick read of the summary. The decision focused on a very specific issue:

The ruling focused on a program under which the N.S.A. has been searching domestic Internet links for communications â" where at least one side is overseas â" in which there are âoestrong selectorsâ indicating insider knowledge of someone who has been targeted for foreign-intelligence collection. One example would be mentioning a personâ(TM)s private e-mail address in the body of an e-mail.

Most of the time, the system brings up single communications, like an e-mail or text message. But sometimes many messages are packaged and travel in a bundle that the N.S.A. calls âoemulti-communication transactions.â A senior intelligence official gave one example: a Web page for a private e-mail in-box that displays subject lines for dozens of different messages â" each of which is considered a separate communication, and only one of which may discuss the person who has been targeted for intelligence collection.

While Judge Bates ruled that it was acceptable for the N.S.A. to collect and store such bundled communications, he said the agency was not doing enough to minimize the purely domestic and unrelated messages to protect Americansâ(TM) privacy. In response, the N.S.A. agreed to filter out such communications and store them apart, with greater protections, and to delete them after two years instead of the usual five.

In short, the court was okay with most of the spying program and the intelligence architecture. The court was not that happy about specific details. That's kind of scary, isn't it, that a court thinks this program is mostly okay?

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.