Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:The Canadian law doesn't apply to these (Score 1) 145

by enharmonix (#47341173) Attached to: Microsoft Suspending "Patch Tuesday" Emails

Like those obnoxious .com sites that only sell to North America.

I live in the US and can say this is never going to change. The internet was not always international, and when it opened up to the public, .com implicitly meant the US. There are still tons of Americans who don't know a .us ccTLD even exists, and no two registrants can share a 2nd level domain in .us. There is a .co.uk but .co.us belongs to the state of Colorodo, and only one person/entity can register something similar like .com.us, so sharing a 2nd-level TLD isn't an option without a middleman. In fact, 2nd level domain registration wasn't even allowed for the public at first, so sites like google.us couldn't exist. Google had to go with .com (Google could have made a case for .net, but back then, .net belonged to ISPs and the like and people didn't jump over to that TLD until we started running out of .com's). Once 2nd-level domain names in the .us TLD opened up to the public, a lot of sites that were already well established haven't bothered to register (or at least maintain) a .us domain because everybody already has their original .com address memorized (so for example, there is no amazon.us). Kind of circular problem, you see? Companies don't use .us because people don't know about it, and people don't know about it because nobody uses it. Not going to change anytime soon.

Comment: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? (Score 3, Informative) 76

by enharmonix (#47262497) Attached to: Amazon's Android Appstore Coming To BlackBerry

The question: is it enough to save BlackBerry in the consumer market, or is it too little, too late?

How long has it been since BlackBerry has had more than a negligible share of the consumer market? These days, they seem to be almost exclusively enterprise. Seriously, the last time I can think of that anybody I know who bought their own BlackBerry was like 7 years ago. Who is using BlackBerry for personal use?

Comment: Re:Ridiculous. (Score 1) 914

being able to lock a person up for 6 months as opposed to 30 years and getting the same result might be a good thing.

I hit Submit too soon. I should add that this would absolutely need to be completely voluntary. You can't tinker with somebody's brain without permission, especially as punishment. That's just wrong.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous. (Score 1) 914

That's ridiculous. If we wanted to cause as much damage to the criminals as possible, why not simply reinstate torture?

You missed part of it. "Is it really OK to lock someone up for the best part of the only life they will ever have, or might it be more humane to tinker with their brains and set them free?" Yes, you can inflict longer sentences for more severe cases, but they have more of their lifespan left when they get done serving their sentence. Don't get me wrong, I think 1000 year sentences are both cruel and unusual, but being able to lock a person up for 6 months as opposed to 30 years and getting the same result might be a good thing.

Comment: Re:A looping simulation, apparently (Score 1) 745

by enharmonix (#46266837) Attached to: Mathematician: Is Our Universe a Simulation?

they are fundamentally unverifiable

They are fundamentally unverifiable as long as you are inside them. Of course, if you can ever escape your simulation, that suggests duality... On that note, Descartes did not believe reality was an illusion and yet he believed in duality. They seem mutually exclusive to me.

Comment: Re:Number of _known_ dangers (Score 2) 143

by enharmonix (#46254771) Attached to: Putting the Next Generation of Brains In Danger

There seem to be more things that are _known_ to be dangerous, but these things obviously were dangerous even when we didn't know they were.

I moderated a really controversial article once and as a result I stopped getting moderator points (as I expect did anybody else who moderated in that discussion, because I promoted comments on both sides of the issue). Since I can't mod you up, I'll just say "good point" in hopes that you get modded up some more.

Taking your comment a step further, this is "Good news, everyone!" because when we know these chemicals are bad, we avoid them. Not all of them are regulated, but manufacturers know people care about their kids safety so they avoid using chemicals shown to be bad (like BPA). That doesn't mean kids are no longer exposed to all of them, but I'd wager they're exposed to significantly fewer of them in smaller amounts than we were as kids.

Comment: Re:Does the data imply better marriages? (Score 1) 158

by enharmonix (#46249221) Attached to: Computer Geeks As Loners? Data Says Otherwise

LOL .. do you read Slashdot at all?

Because I would say most of us are suffering from "asshole syndrome" instead of "nice guy syndrome".

My original UID was in the 100,000s (I think, I seem to recall being disappointed it wasn't 5 digits). Anyway, the point is... I've read slashdot for a long time and most of the people here seem to fit the nerd stereotype pretty well and seems they still do, as long as you ignore the trolls and flamebait. The heated arguments here are always about data and empirical evidence and formal logic and the like. We don't really get passionate about everyday life, so I was basing my observations of nerds on people I know IRL. I really can't speak for your average /.er, on this subject because the subject just doesn't come up too often.

Comment: Re:This doesn't mean they're not loners. (Score 1) 158

by enharmonix (#46248737) Attached to: Computer Geeks As Loners? Data Says Otherwise

Their crushing loneliness compels them to wife the first woman that gives them a chance.

Loneliness in nerds is usually self-inflicted because we choose to socialize remotely (Iike slashdot). I think the typical nerd doesn't "wife the first woman that gives them the chance", but that, unlike your average Joe, they don't typically pursue relationships that they know wouldn't work out. In other words, it's not just somebody who'll give a geek a chance, but somebody who actually loves them enough not to turn around and divorce them after a year. Maybe that "never married" statistic contains the lonely geek stereotype, but I know a lot of geeks (IT, math and music) and most of them are happily married (and most of the ones who aren't are still in long-term, committed relationships). Mine is just anecdotal evidence, but the fact that census data shows both married and never married are above average makes me think nerds stay married.

Comment: Does the data imply better marriages? (Score 2) 158

by enharmonix (#46248551) Attached to: Computer Geeks As Loners? Data Says Otherwise
It's encouraging that a higher than average number of IT workers are married but a higher percentage also have never married because I interpret that to mean IT folks don't just commit, but they stay married too. (I am by profession in IT and I know I am completely committed to my wife and that it's reciprocal, but of course I'm just one person.) There's the term "geek chic" which I guess means nerds are more attractive than they used to be, and I guess that in the end "nice guy syndrome" works to our advantage.

Comment: Re:Competing Against Amazon (Score 1) 52

by enharmonix (#46212977) Attached to: Microsoft Building an 'Xbox Reading' App For Windows 8

Who says it has to be Windows only?

Stop and think about that for a second. With the exception of Office for Mac, how many cross-platform apps from Microsoft can you name? I don't really have a big problem with MS like most /.ers do, but even I know that MS is not a big fan of cross-platform development. One OS to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Working...