Forgot your password?

Comment: Of course there will be... (Score 5, Funny) 171

by dmgxmichael (#48435931) Attached to: Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

It will be interesting to see if this causes any software comparability issues with legacy applications.

Of course there will be - in any large pool of people of any calling there's going to be morons - the sort of morons that sniff the OS version string for things like "Windows 9" and then assume it's Windows 95 or 98 and refuse to work; instead of using the proper channels to query for the OS version number.

As a PHP programmer I can testify that morons can indeed program. I'm one of them.

Comment: Re:Ads (Score 1) 309

by dmgxmichael (#48434747) Attached to: Google Launches Service To Replace Web Ads With Subscriptions

Ultimately, if someone wants a promise to be paid in return for their work, there are a number of options available to them, starting with charging for it just like every other industry in the world that produces value.

Or they'll switch to angular.js and similar technologies to deliver the content. No js, no content. If adblock interferes, crash the page, log the ip and block the user.

Adblock will of course try to stop this. And the cat & mouse game will have begun.

Comment: Re:Ads (Score -1, Flamebait) 309

by dmgxmichael (#48434695) Attached to: Google Launches Service To Replace Web Ads With Subscriptions

Apples and Oranges freeloader.

Sharing music doesn't degrade the performance of the artist's servers, and how often you share it doesn't cost them anything directly (indirectly there's a perceived loss of profits, but since when did freeloaders pay for anything so it's a red herring). Besides, the real money for artists is in concerts, not records.

Stripping a site of its ads denies the site owner of the revenue of those ads while still costing him the bandwidth to send you the content. So there is a direct cost. Insignificant in terms of a single freeloader, but if everyone on the net used adblock, the net would collapse because there'd be no revenue to pay for the servers.

So yes, if you use adblock you're a freeloader, and worse, a thief.

Comment: The more things change the more the stay the same. (Score 4, Interesting) 728

by dmgxmichael (#48110759) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

In any unmoderated discussion the loudest and most insistent voices win. This has been true since democracy started - "politic" meaning roughly in the original Greek "To shout down"

We see this in our current political system as well - wingnuts running the show in both parties because reasonable people won't speak up.

Time and again I've seen this on forums I've been on that have been unmoderated, such as the OkCupid forums. After awhile, only the rudest and the crudest remain there along with those willing to tolerate them.

Comment: Re:suspend GPS? (Score 1) 522

by dmgxmichael (#46992113) Attached to: Russia Bans US Use of Its Rocket Engines For Military Launches

I was experimenting with these things at the University of Kentucky back in 97 or so, and the professor at that time said a few feet. That accuracy has improved since then doesn't surprise me. It would surprise me to find a unit from '97 or so that was accurate to the inch, but I could believe it. I am not an expert in the technology though - just giving the general reason why ground stations are important.

Comment: Re:suspend GPS? (Score 4, Informative) 522

by dmgxmichael (#46991299) Attached to: Russia Bans US Use of Its Rocket Engines For Military Launches

GPS is normally only accurate to within a few yards, and when the system was opened up to civilian use in the late 90's the military put in a discrepancy to the civilian signals so that they'd be off by a few dozen yards.

Then someone hit upon the idea of checking GPS against a known good reading.

GPS base stations do this. They know where they are, exactly. They listen to the GPS satellites report of where the satellites think they are, then broadcast the margin of error out to nearby GPS receivers. As a result, the accuracy of the readings can be gotten exact down to a few feet.

So successful was this that the military eventually discarded the idea of putting in an intentional margin of error for civilian signals.

Comment: Even easier solution (Score 4, Insightful) 123

by dmgxmichael (#46920747) Attached to: Mozilla Offers FCC a Net Neutrality Plan With a Twist
Obama should grow a pair. Instruct the FCC commissioners to reclassify, or be dismissed. If they call as if he's bluffing, fire all of them and replace them with commissioners that will do the reclassification. These snots serve at the pleasure of the President and, in turn, the people. It's high time someone blew up their perceived fiefdoms.

Comment: Re:Religion doesn't care at all about "why" (Score 1) 220

by dmgxmichael (#46543195) Attached to: How Did Bill Nye Become the Science Guy?

To my mind religion is fundamentally about power and money and influence.

Then you know nothing beyond what your prejudice limits you to.

Religion is like a virus of the mind to which we have built insufficient vaccines for. I'd modify that to say only small minds need a god at all.

Small minds aren't limited to theists. Gnostic atheists display small minded bigotry all the time, as you have just have.

Personally, I'm agnostic, but unusual in that I am an agnostic theist. The Gnostic question (Can God's existence be proven?) and the Theist question (Does God exist?) are too often conflated by laypeople. To anyone who has done even a cursory study of theology, the conflation is as absurd as confusing RAM for diskspace because both are measured in bytes.

Most people who label themselves agnostic simply don't understand the question or are trying to avoid it. An agnostic (under the correct definition of the term) believes an objective proof of God doesn't exist. This is a separate question from whether God exists. I do believe God exists, but the proofs of his existence are subjective and not verifiable by science. A leap of faith is required. God cannot be objectively proven because he doesn't want to be objectively proven.

Most theists are gnostic theists, and most strident atheists are gnostic atheists -- they believe they can prove their belief in 0. We are all computer scientists here - surely if any group understands null and 0 are not strictly equal it would be us yes? The charge of the government is to proceed upon the religion question as null. Usually, but not always, that will turn out in the atheist's favor - just as after all in most computer programs the course of action for the program for 0 or null is the same. But there are times when they are not - calls to destroy churches or make the propagation of beliefs illegal are just as onerous as any other call to set up a single state religion and just as illegal in the United States under the first amendment.

Comment: Re:His debate (Score 5, Interesting) 220

by dmgxmichael (#46542141) Attached to: How Did Bill Nye Become the Science Guy?

There is nothing incompatible with Intelligent design and evolution. If there is a God that created the universe then, that God also created evolution and therefor science is simply discovering Gods work.

I've never heard intelligent design described that way before. Intelligent design is the idea that biological organisms required an intelligent entity to create them, that it is unlikely that complex organisms could exist without a designer, which is an idea fundamentally contradicted by evolution. It sounds like you are describing deism, not intelligent design.

That's essentially the approach the modern Catholic church takes. Broadly speaking: Religion (overall) attempts to subjectively answer 'why?' Science attempts to objectively answer 'how?'. Objective and subjective reasoning methods are largely incompatible to begin with, and anyone used to thinking objectively at all times should find subjective reasoning infuriating and off-putting at best - but it's at the heart of the logic within theology.

Personally, I see evolution as part of the creation, a mechanism no more consequential to the question of God's existence than the rainfall. Besides, if we are truly made in God's image, it should only be natural that we should attempt to understand how we were made on all levels of that question.

The problem I think is small minds need a small God. Every time science pushes the boundaries of what we know about the size and complexity of the universe, ignorant rats scuttle about to stick their heads in the sand and deny the truth of what is observable in the universe, so that they may preserve their small God. If God did indeed make the universe, then the universe itself is the ultimate testament to truth (whatever that is) - not a book - for the universe alone was authored by the hand of God. To deny it is to call God a liar.

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid