Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What happened to Debian? (Score 1) 395

by inhuman_4 (#47982623) Attached to: Debian Switching Back To GNOME As the Default Desktop
Except that isn't close to what happened.

Tech sites like slashdot covered the systemd/upstart drama for weeks as it was being pushed through the technical committee. They had a lengthy investigation, multiple rounds of voting, a member of the committee had a temper-tantrum, tried to vote the committee's chairman out. The whole systemd/upstart was a huge shit show that even people who don't use Debian (like) watched if only for it's entertainment value. Hell the conspiracy at the time was that Canonical was using the fact that 3 members of the committee were former employees to create a voting block and push upstart through the system.

In the end it came to a tie and the committee chairman had to cast the deciding vote.

Comment: Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score 1) 260

by inhuman_4 (#47982499) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming
The problem for Canada is that it IS really hard when you are the only country on the continent that signed up for limits. Around 70% of Canada's exports go to the US, which Canada is in a free trade zone with. Any major climate change policy that is done in Canada but not the US will simply drive business south.

Comment: Re:The over-65's swung it for No (Score 4, Interesting) 474

by inhuman_4 (#47947011) Attached to: Scotland Votes No To Independence
The problem with have with giving 16 year olds the right to vote is that it was a one time thing. If Scottish government had come out and said that 16 is an appropriate voting age, and kept that age for all votes then that is okay.

But they didn't do that. They only set the age at 16 for this vote because they believed that the younger crowd would vote yes, which is the way they wanted. Whether or not young people actually voted yes doesn't change the fact that the Scottish government played fast and loose with the democratic system. I don't really see how this is any different than the gerrymandering that goes on the in the US.

Comment: Where are the forks? (Score 1) 826

by inhuman_4 (#47752603) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide
The problem I have with this debate is the lack of forks.

The whole premise of open source is that you can change the code to the way you like it. Look at XFREE86/Xorg, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, X/Mir/Wayland, Unity/Gnome3/MATE, MySQL/MariaDB, and so on. So if there is a large community of experienced Linux people who hate systemd there should be plenty of forks of major distros that use SysVinit instead. So where are they, where is the 'save SysVinit' project? Where is the Debian derivative that keeps the old scripts? For all of whining about systemd you would think where is enough people to maintain several distros. Yet the systemd and upstart teams seems to be the only groups of people actually doing anything concrete.

Linus said “Talk is cheap. Show me the code." and I think that applies perfectly here. No amount of trash talking is going to generate code, forks, or distros.

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: 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.

Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton