Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Uhm (Score 1) 655

by geekmux (#43676173) Attached to: Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom

...Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

We tried to.

We got sued.

By a patent troll.

And an IP lawyer.

The DMCA takedown notice didn't help.

Neither did the MAFIAA when they went after that Anonymous Coward guy.

Like I really need to cite any more examples, genres, or memes here to show how the legal landscape is as powerful as the political one, and has changed things considerably.

I would go into further detail, but I have to consult my lawyer first. Not sure if he'll call me back though, he kind of freaked out over the (warrantless) wiretap he thought he heard on my phone...

Comment: Re:another hit from technology (biotechnology) (Score 1) 586

by geekmux (#43555033) Attached to: Europe Needs Genetically Engineered Crops, Scientists Say

Since 25 years GMOs were tested and not a single case of adverse effects has ever been described. GMOs are not more dangerous than plants coming from classical breeding, actually GMO products are much safer because they are actually being tested. While classic breeding products (even mutagenesis!) are not tested even though it causes massive uncontrolled genetic changes (e.g. jumping genes get activated). There is also no documentation that organic products are healthier in any way. You can find cancerogenic compounds in many organic products (e.g. aflatoxins) and nobody cares about that because it is "organic". You should get out of your romantic view of nature, nature is dangerous! What is interesting is that only people who do not understand anything about biology, plant breeding and GMOs are against GMOs.

The only problem with you theory here (which is so large that it flaws your entire argument) is there is only one thing we shoul fear more than nature, and that is greedy, corrupt corporations attempting to manipulate it for nothing more than profit and gain.

If you stance had any validity to it whatsoever, then Monsanto would be a non-profit organization running patent-free, subsidized by the very governments, countries, and people that they are allegedly here to save. Others would be welcome to grow and even submit their own designs for GMO foods as a solution to saving the entire planet as our population grows, all without the horrors of litigation. Obviously, that is hardly the scenario today, and their tenacity in the courtroom reflects that.

Yes, you're right. Life is full of risk everywhere you turn. But some of us would like to sidestep any manufactured risk, including financial ruin, which ironically has been shown to be one of the largest causes of physical and emotional damage to the human body.

One large conglomerate basically controls the worlds oil supply. And look what has happened to the fuel prices in the last 30 years. How much do you think it's going to cost to put food in your body in the future with the globe now basically facing the same thing (or worse) with the protections now afforded to Monsanto?

Oh, and don't forget what awaits you on the other end of that GMO-laced population as you grow old with ailments. Socialized Medicine. Yes, pure innocence with that organization too, I'm sure.

It is not GMOs we fear. It is the intent behind it. And we should rightfully question it, given their history. Stating otherwise reeks of ignorance or corruption.

Comment: Re:Stop the FUD (Score 1) 126

A hacker could just as concievably shut down the computer or payment system in a traditional gas station rendering it useless. Or disrupt the credit authentication system. Or a terrorist could bomb them. Just because its an EV does not make it or its infrastructure any more or less succeptible to an attack of some kind. To say otherwise just discourages people from looking at it as an alternative and is FUD.

FUD?

On the technology that stands to disrupt companies that profit at a rate of $1,000 per second?

You don't say...

Comment: Station security today? (Score 2) 126

When all one needs is a match to cause chaos at any one of the 100,000+ gas stations across the country, it seems rather strange that we're raising the physical security flag on this. Not saying he doesn't have a point, just seems to wash out when looking at what you could do today with so little.

My house is connected to the electrical grid, and yet for some reason (safety design perhaps?), I highly doubt I could take out a city block from my bedroom outlet.

Comment: Re:Remember (Score 1) 893

by geekmux (#43359479) Attached to: Massive Data Leak Reveals How the Ultra Rich Hide Their Wealth

Some people just don't want to pay taxes. Of course it's a problem I'd rather have.

Some people refuse to change the tax code and get rid of the 4,825,025 loopholes that exist today.

To which I would kindly remind the tax collectors that you not only created this nightmare, but you are the ones sustaining it.

Comment: Re:Totally unworkable (Score 1) 115

by geekmux (#43310781) Attached to: Laser Fusion's Brightest Hope

...nuclear is clearly dead. Last year they installed 31 GW of wind, about 25 (27?) of natgas, and 21 of solar PV. In that same year the "installed" -14 GW of nuclear. At the current rates, the US will be nuclear free by 2050. Seriously, look it up.

Nuclear-free by 2050? That's a laugh.

Now factor in greed and corruption that is the very basis of why this argument even exists, and wise up.

Comment: Our latest technology. The B-52 bomber. (Score 1) 567

by geekmux (#43310113) Attached to: United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea

Trillions of dollars have been spent on defense since the inception of the B-52 bomber that has been in operation since the year referenced in its very name, and this is the tech that we whip out of our "advanced" array of technology to intimidate another country threatening to attack us?

Was the intent to trigger a flashback in the old-timers, and make them believe the Korean war was still going on?

I feel so much better about all that spending on stealth technology...to keep B-52s justified.

Comment: Re:Only because people are dumb (Score 1) 198

by geekmux (#43285283) Attached to: Another Way Carriers Screw Customers: Premium SMS 'Errors'

...Yes, they are incompetent. You spend the effort teaching them to be better. I'll spend less effort ignoring them.

Fine. Have fun being patient with incompetence in any way. I'll speak as many others have to this issue, and in a way that perhaps the business will eventually understand and take action on, spoken in the only language they care about.

I'll speak to their bottom line with my wallet.

Comment: Re:Only because people are dumb (Score 1) 198

by geekmux (#43284857) Attached to: Another Way Carriers Screw Customers: Premium SMS 'Errors'

As I type this, my father is on his phone yelling at his carrier. He's now spent over 20 hours this month yelling at them over the same billing error. He's furious, and it all makes sense.

I have the same carrier. I'm very happy with my carrier. But I've done things very differently. And I continue to do things differently.

The carrier did mis-bill my father. Absolutely and without question. Whether or not it was intentional is optionally obvious. But it's irelevant. My father, like most people, calls them, expects them to work out the issue on the phone for him immediately. And while we all know they should, and they could, it takes twenty minutes and then they don't. Again, intentional or otherwise is up to you.

I've seen all of you guys get frustrated with this sort of thing. So I've solved the problem. Here's what I did, and what I do.

First, I have a "business account". The only difference between a business account and a consumer account is that I asked for a "business account" and they call it a "business account". Otherwise, it's the same. All plans are available to me the same way. If anything, it actually reduces the availabitily of customer support because I need to be transfered to a business account person. Again, true or not is up to your own belief system.

Second, I don't expect anything to ever get done immediately over the phone. About once a quarter, sometimes once a month, I have some sort of an issue to deal with. Maybe billing, maybe account change, maybe whatever. I call, I leave the phone on speaker-phone until I get the right person -- sometimes I'm on hold for twenty minutes, rarely but sometimes. Doesn't matter, I'm working to hold music instead of to my own music, big deal.

Then, I ask for whatever I want. If it doesn't get done and solved perfectly in five minutes by the first reasonable-correct agent, I simply say: "I need to go, please work this out and call me back tomorrow at this time." 90% of the time, that's exactly what happens, and it's perfect. The remaining 10% of the time, if they don't call me back and it doesn't get done, then I walk into the physical brick and mortar store, and say exactly the same thing -- to someone wearing a manager tag. I smile, I shake her hand, I flirt a little (it works between men too, by the way), and I ask them to do me the personal favour and call me back with the solution -- and I give them a full week.

I think a lot of you forget that, assuming your phone is functional, all of these billing- and plan-, and account-related issues can be worked out retro-actively. There really is no rush. It's not urgent.

So I live a very happy life. I get problems solved within a week, with minimal time and effort spent by me. Why does anyone need any more? You deserve to have your problem solved. You don't deserve to have your problem solved within an hour.

#1. I've had a smartphone for almost 3 years now. Can't say I've had a need to get on the phone with anyone once a quarter, let alone once a month. That, is rather ridiculous.

#2. I'm failing to see how your treatment is any different than the average consumer by obtaining a "business" account. Glad to see you somehow see value in all this bullshit, because I certainly don't.

#3. While I agree with you from a technical standpoint when it comes to hardcore troubleshooting issues, something along the lines of a billing issue should be able to be resolved fairly quickly by a competent person on the phone, and within a few minutes. Finding otherwise screams incompetence, either with staff or the systems in use.

Sorry, but about the only thing you've proven here is the sheer incompetence of the average support department, and the sheer arrogance that all of them continue to operate at to ensure people like you get used to this level of shit service, which clearly you have.

Comment: Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole (Score 5, Insightful) 187

by geekmux (#43283463) Attached to: Brain Scans Predict Which Criminals Are More Likely To Re-offend

You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.

So, let me get this straight...you're going to continue to incarcerate me, for something I might do in the future?

Believe me, I'm not questioning whether this would actually happen or not. We've proven corruption knows no bounds.

I'm merely pointing out the "minor" issues with this concept, regardless of where our Rights have dissolved away.

Comment: Re:Waste of computer power (Score 2) 135

by geekmux (#43279355) Attached to: World's Most Powerful Private Supercomputer Will Hunt Oil and Gas

Oil and gas?! How about Solar? Wind? GeoThermal? LFTR/Thorium? Why are we blowing computer power on dying industries!?

Well, it seems like a waste of computing power to use it to find those things. I mean, we already know where the sun is. We already know where it's windy.

Waste of computing power? Most likely.

Waste of money to those invested in it to help feed a greedy and corrupt oil industry? Not hardly.

Just follow the money. Oddly enough, it always seems to lead to the true answers.

Comment: Re:Schneier: Not a big picture guy (Score 1) 333

by geekmux (#43279275) Attached to: Schneier: The Internet Is a Surveillance State

This conversation is [...] not about home videos.

It is about home movies. It's about the storage location for them. And the home movie is not recorded by the corporation, but recorded by a private individual who sees value in uploading it. Much like all the photos of you that are on Facebook (even if you aren't tagged in them). So many pretend it's something new. It's not. It's a minor change to something old. Corporations have been datamining home movies for a while now. What's so wrong with this particular implementation? Oh, nobody can answer that, so they just whine "non sequitur, you aren't allowed to prove me wrong on the Internet, so I name any rhetorical 'trick' I don't like and accuse you of it."

Fine. You win. This is about home movies.

Now tell me again how I opt-out, should I choose not to have my life recorded.

There, is that "non sequitor" enough for you?

Sorry, but that should be the painfully obvious difference to you here. It's not the what, or where that concerns me most here. It's the when (as in putting ME in control of the record button), and the why (as in why again are you doing this and detaining the "evidence" for several years), and the who (as in who all has access to this information).

Perhaps now you will understand that this has about 1% to do with the freedom to press a damn record button. And I can store my own home movies on my own servers, using my own domains, and with my own encryption schema to share between family members if I like. Unless I breaking other laws while creating them, not one single corporation needs to be concerned in that scenario about the content. Not one.

The difference between dogs and cats is that dogs come when they're called. Cats take a message and get back to you.

Working...