Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Welcome to the Next Level. (Score 4, Insightful) 159

by JesseMcDonald (#47585337) Attached to: Getting Back To Coding

That sounds like a great idea. Since you're coding for the least common denominator, you obviously get none of the benefits of the target language, while still suffering from all of its issues, plus whatever additional issues are introduced by your under-spec'd and idiosyncratic "meta language" and "meta compiler".

To top it off, no one else will ever be able to maintain or build on what you write, so you're stuck with that job forever, unable to move on to something better—or at least until TPTB wake up and realize that it's far more trouble than it's worth and throw it out in favor of something which is properly idiomatic and standardized and which doesn't make them wholly dependent on you and your "meta compiler".

No thanks.

Comment: Re:Moving information for Freedom.... (Score 1) 433

by JesseMcDonald (#47585153) Attached to: Judge: US Search Warrants Apply To Overseas Computers

I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing. First, perhaps I'm just reading too much into your wording, but it sounds like you would have to admit guilt, as opposed to the court ruling against you for failure to comply while you continue to maintain your innocence. Second, and more importantly, only the defendant can "stipulate in court to the prosecution's allegations". What about subpoenas issued to third parties who would otherwise not have anything at stake? Like Microsoft in this case—they aren't the defendant, they're just holding the data.

The only reasonable way to handle this, so far as I can see, would be for the court to order the actual defendant in the case to direct Microsoft to turn over the data, or in extreme cases to do so in the defendant's stead. Microsoft would then be following the directions of their customer according to the terms of their contract, and not under the duress of a court order.

Comment: Re:Moving information for Freedom.... (Score 1) 433

by JesseMcDonald (#47584045) Attached to: Judge: US Search Warrants Apply To Overseas Computers

...your failure to comply would result in you being held in contempt of court, and jailed or otherwise punished until you do comply.

And this is pretty much the entire problem, right here. The very concept of "contempt of court"—arbitrary punishments handed out by judges at their sole discretion, with no consideration for proportionality or due process—runs counter to the principle of rule of law. I have no problem with a court saying that if you refuse to turn over relevant documents then they will be assumed to be as damaging as possible to your case. I do have a problem with them saying that if you don't turn over the documents you'll be subject to potentially indefinite jail time and fines in excess of whatever damages you were accused of inflicting on the other party.

Well, that and the fact that they seem to be trying to apply subpoena rules to a search warrant. A search warrant doesn't impose any obligations beyond staying out of law enforcement's way while they search the place. A subpoena, on the other hand, is an order for someone within the court's jurisdiction to testify or produce evidence. This is being described as a search warrant for reasons that are not at all clear to me, but the court apparently wants the company to perform the search itself and produce evidence as if it were subpoenaed.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by JesseMcDonald (#47583551) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

people are also responsible for manipulating other people to do harm

I agree with you here, but as I see it, people weren't manipulated into panicking; they were manipulated into thinking that there was a fire. The panicking and its consequences were a separate matter, and their own fault, not that of whoever shouted "fire".

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by JesseMcDonald (#47581967) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

I see this boils down to free will of pepole in a situation they perceive threatening.

I agree, but much like free will itself, I don't see that we have any real choice except to extend people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are in control of their own actions, even if it seems likely that their response was more or less "automatic". If you take away someone's personal responsibility, you also take away their right to self-determination, reducing them to the level of animals. So long as people want to be treated as people, they have to take responsibility for their actions, even if those actions were driven by instinct rather than logic.

Comment: Re:Headline trifecta (Score 1) 81

by HornWumpus (#47581759) Attached to: Nevada Construction Project Could Be Tesla/Panasonic Gigafactory

5-95% is deep cycling for a lead-acid car battery. They like to start the car then get recharged.

Your cheapest option for a decent deep cycle lead acid battery is going to be a trolling motor boat battery.

Lithium is still cost prohibitive for non-mobile applications.

Any good sized battery bank is a hazard. Think of it as an arc welder that's always powered up.

Comment: Re:Here's an idea! (Score 2) 182

by hairyfeet (#47581261) Attached to: Nintendo Posts Yet Another Loss, Despite Mario Kart 8

Riiight, because LJN didn't exist on the NES, there weren't games like Friday the 13th and Dark Tower on the NES. I think there is somebody you ought to meet, seeing as how he makes his living reviewing shitty NES games.

Oh and just FYI, from somebody that was actually working in retail during the crash? The "prevailing wisdom" is a big steaming pile of horseshit. gather around childrens and let this old greybeard tell ya what REALLY caused the crash!

Ya see little childrens the industry had back then what was called a "stock and swap" business model going and here is how it are a retailer, and the distributor wants you to sell games, but you don't know anything about games and are leery...what to do? "Simple" says Mr Distributor, "all you have to do is hand me any unsold games and I'll give you brand NEW games in return until they DO sell, you can't lose!"....Now I bet all you can see the big gaping flaw in this model, can't you kids? By taking out any risk it caused retailers to overstock to the extreme because it was like money in the bank, right? Every one that doesn't sell will be replaced for a new title until it sells and with each sale I make a nice profit so I should have a TON of games so I can have a TON of profits...yay!

And THIS boys and girls NOT the Atarti case, is what caused the crash. Even at the little Magic Mart I was working part time at in the middle of a town with only 10k people at the time there was 7 different game systems and over 1000 titles because it was like money in the bank, right? Well the distributors started to take any game for any system made by any company just to get new products they could flip, the markets became completely saturated with systems and games and all it took was a couple of the middlemen to go under for the whole thing to collapse. the retailers panicked when they couldn't just turn in old carts and systems for new, started dumping product in the channel trying to get out, and the whole thing went to shit.

So there it is boys and girls, the same thing that caused so many other crashes, gambling in the market caused by shady systems and promises of easy money without risk. By the middle of 84 I was walking out of Magic Mart with over a thousand bucks worth of games and systems for my $50 check and needless to say I wasn't buying any full price games when I was getting 4 Coleco games for a buck or 10 Atari which just made the few companies left cash starved as their new product had to compete with 10c it any wonder so many went tits up?

Comment: Re:Here's an idea! (Score 1) 182

by hairyfeet (#47580171) Attached to: Nintendo Posts Yet Another Loss, Despite Mario Kart 8
Yeah which is why the PC died in the 80s, it being open killed any reason to develop for it...oh wait...hell if anything I'd say being open is what has caused the indie game explosion, with anybody with a really good idea (and a little help from kickstarter) coming out with completely new takes on traditional gaming.

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 274

by JesseMcDonald (#47579429) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

So that mass panic in the theater would have happened anyway, without anyone shouting "fire"?

Perhaps not, but the supposed "crime" was falsely shouting "fire", and the panic would have happened even if there really was a fire. In any case, no one forced the other patrons to panic. If they did, it was entirely their own fault, and they—not whoever shouted "fire"—are wholly responsible for the consequences.

Looking at the events after they're happened, we can conclude that someone unnecessarily shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was a sufficient condition (thus, leading) to people getting hurt. Was it a necessary condition for people getting hurt that way? Common sense says it was.. also anyone who's looking someone to blame.

Wrong on both counts. It is neither a sufficient condition, since people could simply refrain from panicking despite the (maybe false) warning, nor a necessary one, as there could be a panic even if the warning was true, or for that matter without anyone shouting "fire" at all.

If you offer an incentive (survive a theatre fire / money) to someone for committing a crime (trampling someone to death / shooting someone), did you cause it, or was it all on the person who committed the act?

Obviously, the person who committed the act. Otherwise one would be forced into the absurd conclusion that property owners are at least partly responsible for the theft of their property, since simply by having it they give potential thieves an incentive to steal. The same could be said of many other crimes. Responsibility rests with the one whose choices led directly to the outcome. Merely offering an incentive does not make one responsible for the consequences of someone else's choice.

If you manipulate someone by giving them false information, that could be said to take away their ability to choose freely, making you responsible for the consequences when they make the right choice given the information you provided and harm results because it was false. However, that does not apply here, because trampling others in one's haste to escape is something one would be responsible for even if the fire were real; the harm was not due to the information being false.

Comment: Re:That means new privacy laws right? (Score 1) 254

The CIA/NSA has so much dirt on all the congress critters that they will never do anything else but make distracting noises.

My one hope was that Snowden had gotten a copy of the files on congress. But those are the keys to the kingdom. No way he had access.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...