Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:More F-35 Hate (Score 1) 364

by inhuman_4 (#47421549) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Sorry you feel that way. But if you look at my account I've been active since 2009, rather dedicated for an astroturfing account.

The truth is the track record on the F-35 is little different than any other post-cold war weapons program. They are always over budget and behind schedule.

F-22: Too slow, no air to ground, too expensive, stealth not proven, too little armament, no competitor for it to face, cold war relic, etc. Orders dropped from 750 to 195. Now people are proposing to buy more of them instead of the F-35.

B-2: Stealth not proven, too slow, too expensive, hangar queen, poor handling, etc. Orders dropped from 132 to 21. Now it's heralded as a sign of American military power.

Elements of Power: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2013/08/f-35-critics-same-sht-different-century.html Does a great job comparing the complaints about the F-35 to complaints made about the F-15.

It's always the same nonsense, complaining about specs that don't matter in modern combat, ignoring improvements to things that do matter, offering no alternative, complain about cost.

Comment: More F-35 Hate (Score 1) 364

by inhuman_4 (#47420341) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Ah yes more F-35 hate.

Claim the costs are increasing, except the price per plane is decreasing. Check.

Faux outrage at the $1 trillion price tag that has been part of the plan for decades and pays for R&D for 3 new fighters, a purchase order for ~2,500 aircraft, plus maintenance and training for 55 years. Check.

Complain that it has a part built in every state, just like every other military project in the last 50 years. Check.

Unfortunately the authors forgot to mention how important dog fighting is to a strike fighter. Also passed up the opportunity to talk about how we are not sure if stealth actually works. I mean, the least they could do is compare it to the F-16 using clean specs and a non-inflation adjusted price from the 80s.

Standard cheap-shots on the costs, but weak follow through on "manoeuvrability problems". I'll give it a 6/10.

Comment: Re:His choices... (Score 5, Insightful) 194

by inhuman_4 (#47349543) Attached to: The Internet's Own Boy
For sure he made some poor choices.

But that doesn't excuse the government response. The justice department had no reason to act in such a heavy handed manner. They quite clearly wanted to make an example of him and were willing to bend the law to do so.

But the bigger issue here isn't Swartz, it's the fact that this kind of treatment has become common place. Putting a "hacker" in solitary confinement didn't make any sense when they did it to Kevin Mitnik, and it didn't make any sense with Swartz. It's an abuse of power, the tragedy is it took a suicide for people to notice.

Comment: We don't do this already? (Score 4, Insightful) 493

by inhuman_4 (#47119537) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration
As a Canadian I'm shocked that the government doesn't already do this. I alway just assumed that when I went to the hospital the medical staff could look up what shots I've had, what I'm allergic to, and any major surgeries I've undergone.

As a side note. I think this a good idea. I sure as shit don't want someone who isn't vacinated wandering around a hospital war full of people who's immune system is compromised.

Comment: I hope that he gets his money (Score 1) 449

I hope he gets everything that he asks for.

Yes the Timothy McVeigh, Andrew Stack, and Marvin Heemeyer part was in very poor taste. Yes his "open letter" is childish.

I don't care. The government doesn't get to abuse someones rights, no matter how much of an asshole that person may be.

Comment: Re:Space Shuttle Challenger (Score 3, Interesting) 333

by inhuman_4 (#46939207) Attached to: NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project
The thing is there is a huge difference in what "reuseable" means for the Space Shuttle and for the Falcon.

The Space Shuttle was firing the engines for 540-761 seconds, taking the engines to orbit , staying in order for days or weeks, bringing the engines back through reentry, then refurbishing them. That is a pretty tall order.

SpaceX is only trying to recover the first stage. It only burns for 180 seconds. Reaching a maximum height of around 90-100km (about the same as SpaceShipOne). Since it never reaches orbital velocity it doesn't experiance anything like the reentry forces the Space Shuttle does. It then does a powered landing on a launch pad. Still a tall order, but much less than what the Space Shuttle was trying to do.

Additionally the Falcon 9 has already demonstrated that it can complete is primary mission with one engine failure. And the resuable engines will not be used on man rated systems, so the reliability standards are not as high as for the SSME. We won't know how extensive the refurbisment costs are, but the Merlin engines are smaller and simpler than the SSME. Its possible that some of the 9 engines may have to be discarded, but even if only 5-6 are in good enough shape to be resued in non-man-rated launches; that is a pretty significant cost savings.

Comment: Change of tune (Score 4, Insightful) 448

by inhuman_4 (#46733087) Attached to: Commenters To Dropbox CEO: Houston, We Have a Problem
I find it very amusing how the tune has changed with regards to how vote with their wallet and corporate moral character.

For the longest time the argument was "Well if you don't like company x don't buy their products!". With the implication being that if you don't actually stop, then you are just a whiner or a hypocrite. But now people really are taking their business elsewhere. The actions of a company or the people that represent a company is effecting the bottom line. Yet somehow old "vote with your wallet" is no longer acceptable. Somehow judging a company based on it's moral character is an assault on free speech, maybe even down right persecution!

For a long time people (on Slashdot especially) have been warning of the dangers of putting your data in the cloud. Of the amount of personal information that can be gleaned from your web browsing habits. That that big business is cooperating with the government (willingly or not) in a massive breach of privacy. So how and can anyone be surprised that customers demand moral character from leadership of companies to whom we are handing over so much personal information?

If you had to make a choice between companies to store YOUR personal information and your choices are: Company A with Bruce Schneier on it's board of directors, and Company B with Dick Cheney on it's board of directors. Does anyone seriously think that difference shouldn't effect the decision?

I for one have no sympathy. Yes a company has every right to alienate their customers, but customers also have every right to vote with their wallets.

Comment: Re:Simple.... Odds are even (Score 1) 167

by inhuman_4 (#46671971) Attached to: A Rock Paper Scissors Brainteaser
If you play 2/3 paper 1/3 rock. He will play 1/2 paper, 1/2 rock.

Wins for you:
Paper vs rock: 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 win
Rock vs scissors: 1/3 * 0 = 0 win
Scissors vs paper: 0 * 1/2 = 0 win

For him:
Paper vs rock: 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6
Rock vs scissors: 1/2 * 0 = 0
Scissors vs paper: 0 * 2/3 = 0

Your optimal strategy (2/3 paper, 1/3 rock) vs his optimal strategy (1/2 paper, 1/2 rock), results 1/3 win not a 1/2 win.

Comment: Re:Two Games (Score 1) 167

by inhuman_4 (#46671833) Attached to: A Rock Paper Scissors Brainteaser
We know that the opponent must play rock 1/2 of the time.

If I play paper 4/6 of the time, than I should expect 1/2 of my paper to align with his rock. So 4/6 * 1/2 = 2/6 = 1/3. So I should expect to win 1/3 of the time, plus my winnings on the other combinations. That means 1/3 is the lower bound.

If you play 1/3 rock and 2/3 paper, his response will be 1/2 paper and 1/2 rock. So you are going to get 2/3 * 1/2 = 1/3 for your paper. But your 1/3 rock will never win because he will never play scissors either. But his 1/2 paper will meet your 1/3 rock, giving him 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/6 win. Putting you head by only 1/6.

This is where the two games key comes in. You and I both recognize that 2/3 paper is the right move because 1/2 of his moves will be rock. But by playing the other half as regular RPS with a win/tie/loss of 1/1/1 you can expect the win/loss to cancel out, leaving you with your 1/3 lower bound advantage.

Comment: Re:Two Games (Score 1) 167

by inhuman_4 (#46671485) Attached to: A Rock Paper Scissors Brainteaser
The opponent doesn't have the option to play anything greater than 1/2 scissors because the other 1/2 must be rock. If he uses the "all scissors" response, he can only actually do a 1/2 scissors response. So is we play it out:

1/2 scissors x 4/6 paper = 2/6 = 1/3 victory for the opponent. 1/2 scissors x 1/6 scissors is 1/12 tie. And 1/2 scissors x 1/6 rock is 1/12 lose. So the "all scissors" strategy only nets him 1/3 victory not 4/6.

Comment: Two Games (Score 3, Insightful) 167

by inhuman_4 (#46671095) Attached to: A Rock Paper Scissors Brainteaser
You should play paper 4/6 of the time, rock 1/6, and scissors 1/6 of the time.

The key (if you RFTA) is that whether or not your opponent plays rock is determined by a coin toss. So really you are playing a compound game. You are playing a coin toss and rock paper scissors (RPS). Since the coin toss determines your opponents move, you can think of it as playing 50% coin toss and 50% RPS. The RPS is a subgame of the coin toss.

Since the coin toss is the dominate game, you play with win that first. But instead of heads/tails, it is paper/other. The answer to the coin toss is a 50/50 guess of heads/tails, so the answer to the paper/other is 50% paper, 50% other.

The "other" is the RPS game. And since the answer to the RPS game is 1/3 rock, 1/3 paper, 1/3 scissors, we know what the solution to the other 50% of the game is.

So the equations are:choice = (Coin Toss) + (RPS) so: paper = 1/2 + 1/3, rock = 0 + 1/3, scissors = 0 + 1/3. Or paper = 4/6, rock = 1/6, scissors = 1/6.

Comment: Re:Still trying to wrap my head... (Score 1) 51

by inhuman_4 (#46609133) Attached to: oVirt 3.4 Means Management, VMs Can Live On the Same Machine
One big issue is that virtual machines allows for different OSes. So if you are provides a variety of services, like legacy applications for example, you consolidate them all on to one machine.

It also allows for easier testing. Say for example you need to stress test your application on some combination Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, FreeBSD, WinServer, Mac, and Solaris, or even a variety of different versions of those OSes. Putting them all in virtual machines is much simpler than re-installing or having a dedicated machine for each one. It also makes it easy to call up your test environment if a customer reports a bug.

Money doesn't talk, it swears. -- Bob Dylan

Working...