Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Nah, this is just stage 1 (Score 1) 305

by DarkOx (#48204821) Attached to: Hungary To Tax Internet Traffic

The real conceptual problem with it comes down to SS was designed before we had a fiat currency.

When we were on the gold standard government "savings" took real money out of the economy. Because the taxes are levied and the government does not put it back into "nice things" subsidies for education, roads, other services. People must continue to pay for these on their own so they have to stay in the work force, the dollars pulled out make the dollar slightly stronger.

The smaller generation following a boom would usually create deflation, few workers => lower productivity less money moving. Having retirees drawing down the SSTF would have smoothed that money would flow back in and they would have spent it.

Instead we went fiat. So rather than SSTF contributions being that deflationary drag, the government just borrowed creating new inflation. Now that money as its disbursed is just more fuel on the inflationary fires. So it does not go as far, we have to make COLA adjustments and pay it out faster creating a ever widening disconnect between what people pay in and what they typically get out (assuming they live their projected life spans).

So the entire thing is completely unhinged; it would be even worse but for the fact the rest of the economy also plays by one rule now; "the influential make it up as they go along"

Comment: Re:Recognition (Score 1) 149

by DarkOx (#48196831) Attached to: 'Microsoft Lumia' Will Replace the Nokia Brand

Yea but the hatred of Microsoft is more resentment and jealousy than anything else. Sure geeks hate them but nobody else really does. Microsoft like IBM before it represents safety in a confusing market place. Nobody every got fired for buying Microsoft, just like nobody ever got fired for buying IBM before that.

Microsoft has lost the consumer phone space, they have not yet decided they won't try but they know trying to get Teens and college kids to think their phones are 'cool' and or convince homemakers they are easy and safe would mean dislodging incumbents who have invested lots in that messaging already and have largely succeeded and are now seeing those ideas intrenched. Nokia still has come cache there; if they were going down that road they'd pick Nokia.

Microsoft is instead going with their old top down we're gonna force it on you strategy. The business mobile space has tons of companies that still don't have device deployment beyond the sales force, they have large orgs that are fleeing the Blackberry sinking ship. They can land those deals, right now all the policy management and such absolutely sucks for IOS and android; its all half backed and has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. Microsoft is a brand you sell IT managers on. Its familiar and rule 0 of marketing is familiarity is more important than likability. People will knowingly select a brand they have had negative past experience with over the unknown.

IT manager thinking works like this: durr herp derp Samsung they make TVs; now Microsoft they make IT solutions! derp.

The truth is Windows phone probably can/will score better on their myopic score card spreadsheet too, Microsoft knows how to win the weighted decision matrix game. Which we all should know is a tool managers everywhere use to give a veneer of objectivity to their most subjective a prejudiced decisions. I look forward to the TCO whitepapers streaming from servers in 5 . 4 . 3 . 2 . 1 what relevance do the categories and metrics chosen have to do with anything; well the will have been 'scientifically' chose to make Microsoft look good.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 227

by DarkOx (#48195415) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

The trouble is the law isn't the law. Law enforcement is not supposed to break the law. Facebook has a terms of use agreement, your right to access their systems and post anything there exists entirely from your agreement to abide by the terms there. Facebook does not allow pseudonyms and other characterizations of ones identity.

Doing so constitutes violation of the CFAA, the court even held that in US v Drew ( a case about pseudonyms on myspace), although the verdict was vacated because the District court judge believed that while violating the terms of service on a web site could constitute unauthorized access, placing site operators in control of criminality would likely result in the law being over turned for being vague ( does not define the act, other than to say violation of a certain type of contract is a criminal offense ) rather than letting that be tested the government chose not appeal so they could keep their law on the books. Presumably so they can continue to threaten and harass anyone who does anything on line they don't like with it ( remember is really vague ).

Facebook does not belong to them, but they use it anyway in violation of the terms and their own law. If you or I setup dozens of fake Facebook acounts and use it to harass someone you can bet at the very least they would waive the CFAA in our faces to try and get us to plea to something else. Rules don't apply to them though!

If they set up their own site they would be perfectly within their rights to do this kind of pretexting; but then who is going to sign up and start posting on NARKBook?

Comment: Re:Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 466

by bmo (#48190499) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

So the "'net neutrality" rules every idiot is screaming for means that ISPs will be required to scan for and block this from being transmitted over their networks. Because it's not "lawful content".


Net Neutrality is all about classifying the ISPs as what the other telecom and freight companies are: common-carriers.

Verizon, as a telephone company, doesn't censor "illegal" voice traffic, does it? They do not, last I checked. That's because Verizon is a common-carrier and is not held liable for telephone content over its wires. UPS is not held liable for a pound of weed being shipped through its system, either, because they are a common-carrier. Being held not liable is exchanged for the duty they have to not discriminate against customers and traffic for the common good.

Back in the day of the local BBS being your ISP, system operators could discriminate against abusive/disruptive/trolling users (we wanted that freedom, because resources were tight) being able to ban users/delete traffic. Because BBSes were classified as "information services" (as ISPs are classified right now), holding a kind of editorial power, we fought against common-carrier classification because it would have been onerous. But once a sysop exercised editorial power he/she was held liable for illegal/defamatory/copyright-infringing content hosted on the drives.

Like what happened to Rusty&Edie's.

ISPs have grown beyond the local BBS for well over a decade-and-a-half and ISPs are no longer "editorial." They have become common-carriers in everything but name, and the ISPs like TimeWarner/Cox/Comcast/Charter, etc, want to have their cake and eat it too - they want to be able to discriminate various kinds of traffic and retain editorial power while being not held liable for that traffic.

Sorry, no, they don't get to do that. They are now common-carriers and should be classified that way.

And that's what Net Neutrality is all about.


Comment: Re:No the constitution is fine.. (Score 1) 279

by DarkOx (#48140135) Attached to: Who's In Charge During the Ebola Crisis?

That clause is in the preamble. It and everything else in the preamble should not be read as operative, it merely provides context in which to read the rest of the document. In that sense the idea it functions as a restrictive clause is more reasonable it limits possible interpretations of the other powers.

Its like the description before the ingredients list on a recipe. If you just had the title and then it launched strait into the contents and cooking instructions you'd have no idea what to do when you encounter something vague like bake 10-14min @ 350.

Should it be 10 or 14 how do I know? Well it helps to know the objective was: A delicious light by dry cake to be served with coffee.

That helps now you know to err on the side of more done, but not burred, as opposed to worrying the cake is loosing to much moisture.

Comment: Re: symbols, caps, numbers (Score 1) 546

by DarkOx (#48139859) Attached to: Password Security: Why the Horse Battery Staple Is Not Correct

Okay so there should be some limit. Buffers need to be allocated etc. There is not good reason that limit needs to be so small it impacts humans. 10KB would be a preposterously long password but would no more expose a webserver and or database engine to a DOS than all of the other operations they necessarily allow already do.