Forgot your password?

Comment: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Score 1, Insightful) 530

by jackspenn (#47765827) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report
I haven't see this much FUD since Eric S Raymond published the Microsoft Halloween Documents in 1998.

Which, is interesting given that the temperature recordings since 1998 have been flat and every climate model projection for that period has been wrong, and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.

Comment: Re:Damned if you do... (Score 1) 502

by jackspenn (#47583641) Attached to: Judge: US Search Warrants Apply To Overseas Computers
1). The majority of Europeans are lazy pussies who listen to terrible music and don't know how to drive (Poland and Baltic states are the exception, those people are awesome). So, I doubt the EU branch of MS would be willing to comply because of some higher moral reason, but I could see them dragging their feet or passing the buck (I mean Euro).

2). This is a terrible ruling and this judge is out of line, this will likely be struck down on appeal.

3). I keep reading all this postings with analogies of people taking something from the US to another country to avoid being charged or to hide evidence. Couple points. We don't even know if there was a crime, the warrant is to try and determine that. Secondly, who is to say whatever on that server was ever in the US? What if the spreadsheet or whatever, was created and saved entirely on the EU servers and never lived within the US?. I can see some people thinking, but but but the access was from the US, so the cache or the keystrokes or whatever was in the US, so therefore the US courts can issue a warrant. OK, then have them get a warrant to look at the computer(s) within the US and tell them to have fun.

4). This is why you should encrypt your data regardless of where you keep it and regardless of whether you are committing a crime or not. This area more than any other is protected by the rule of law in the US (for now). If the federal government gets your encrypted data, fuck 'em. You don't have the give the the secret according to the Constitution, if they can crack it on their own well, congrats, but nothing says we have to submit like subjects.

Comment: Re:32bit ISOs = GONE (Score 1) 125

by jackspenn (#47407179) Attached to: CentOS Linux Version 7 Released On x86_64
I understand why you and others who have relied on 32bit versions; either because of driver or application requirements.

That said, I believe that by going to only 64bit versions, it will actually make everything easier in the long run.

Here is how I would anticipate things playing out. You're going to have to sit on a current 32bit version for now, but this will lead to Digium (or a 3rd party) building out supported 64bit drivers to remain relevant. This will allow you to run the same kernel versions across all servers/devices and that is a positive thing.

Comment: Re:Good point, except... (Score 2) 220

by jackspenn (#47096177) Attached to: PHK: HTTP 2.0 Should Be Scrapped
From reading the HTTP/2.0 thread, it seems like some of us "normal" users should respond to the working group last comment call and point out that encryption alone is not enough. That privacy and anonymity are at least equal to encryption, if not more important.

Was tempted to post as an Anonymous Coward for effect.

Comment: Re: Yes! No more mandates! (Score 1) 584

Are your for requiring every car to check the drivers blood alcohol content before it will allow the engine to start or to allow it to shift and be put into motion? Are you for requiring all cars to automatically brake if something is detected in its path? These items would add more to the cost of a car and negatively impact all drivers even ones that never drink, but more Americans are killed with cars than are killed by guns every year. Would you do it for the children?

Comment: Re: I thought weather was not climate... (Score 1, Troll) 379

by jackspenn (#47035763) Attached to: Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming
I do not think you understand this thing called "science". In it you only change one variable at a time. Your comment admitting fuel supply has increased and then also stating but GW is also making the fires worse. It makes everyone who reads this GW propaganda a little bit dumber. That is not science. Every GW computer model has been wrong when compared to real world observations, they aren't science. The only fact we can say about every GW programmatic model that can be absolutely proven is the fact that these models will never be able to take all of the variables into account and therefore aren't good examples of scientific methods"

Comment: Re:I thought weather was not climate... (Score 5, Insightful) 379

by jackspenn (#47035699) Attached to: Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming

area burned by the West's largest wildfires — those of more than 1,000 acres — have increased by about 87,700 acres a yea

So here is the problem with libtards, they create a problem and then use selective results that are actually the result of their own BS as proof, more of what they want, needs to be done.

This is true with the wild fires and the selection of data to help show how bad Global Warming is getting. The government back in the 90s decided their brilliant fire policies could be even more brilliant. Instead of letting small fires burn (some seeds and bugs only grow/hatch after a fire), but no no no, people in universities and in Washington, these intellectuals, were smarter than nature or those western ranching folks with no college degree. See these collectivists were so smart they said "New policy let's put every fire out ASAP". "Oh, and no you cannot remove brush and grass and 'fuel' that would normally have been periodically consumed and used up and removed". Instead the new "intellectuals" said "protect nature" ... by acting in an unnatural way. So all these little fires were put out and things looked so good ( ... in the short-term), that I am sure they patted themselves on the back and were like "Boy are we awesome, we are so much smarter than that farmer who said this was a dangerous idea".

So the fuel just built up everywhere and then when something happens to ignite it, be it lightening or a cigarette, the little fires have a greater probability of becoming bigger fires. Time means more fuel, greater risk. Tick tick tick. So then after awhile we get these huge fires. What do those smart intellectuals do? Do they review their suggestions of the past? Take into account the bureaucratic BS that contributed to these fires? No! First, they smoke a bowl and later .... they say "Let's help that farmer who lost his ranch. Let's help those people who lost there homes. Let's explain to them that it is all mankind's fault." They then go on to explain BS like carbon foot prints and how that is why fires are worse. It is also why flooding is worse or droughts or pretty much anything, and the only way to fix it is to accept global collectivism. Yup, only with global collectivism can we prevent forest fires.

Comment: Re:I thought weather was not climate... (Score 5, Interesting) 379

by jackspenn (#47035585) Attached to: Studies: Wildfires Worse Due To Global Warming
Are you sure the more frequent larger fires aren't actually the result of past fire prevention? I know some fire fighters and park rangers who told me that policy changes in the 90s prevented them from letting small fires go naturally (these fires weren't even important enough to make the national news). Instead the policy was modified to "Put all observed fires out ASAP." In addition they were banned from removing brush that would normally have been consumed by these smaller fires. I remember them saying that if not changed the policies would lead to bigger fires in the future. A sorta pay for it later mess. So my question is, if it is fair to say many "Scientist" claim fire increases are because of "climate change", is it not fair to say there are "Philosophers" who reason fire increases are because of "bureaucratic BS"?

Comment: Re: Throwing out all compatibility hooks makes it (Score 1) 164

by jackspenn (#47032115) Attached to: 30-Day Status Update On LibreSSL
Actually, they don't even say "fuck you". They suggest you use your resources to implement that feature within your OS. Which, makes sense. I have a friend who runs tons of stuff on some Alpha servers he got in exchange for helping the university port off those systems. Basically what libreSSL is suggesting to him is a decision tree. If underlying library or function that we assume the OS should handle is not available on your system. Here are some suggestions: 1). Fund adding/implementing those needed parts to expand support (seems reasonable that exceptions help cover these costs) 2). Consider moving to support core line of OS and/or hardware 3). Help expand support and code solution (again seems reasonable) Now, obviously not every option is available to everyone. If you don't have money, you might not be able to fund it yourself (though you could solicite other parties and pool resources). If you're not comfortable coding, 3 is probably not possible (unless you have the time and interest in learning). Just saying not so much "FU" as it is focused approach based on plethora of reasons where exceptions can help add and expand support. Instead of people saying "How rude they aren't offering improvements for Mac OS9, I don't like them". Perhaps look at what they are providing cleaned up SSL solution with compatible APIs for variety of modern OSes ... (More to follow). I come from networking world, so to me their approach makes the most sense for long term. OSI model of layered approach, seems appropriate to use OS random number generator and accepted libraries rather than record for exceptions. Over time if openssl continues with its different approach, time will tell who is better. Could be both survive (as SSL is used everywhere) or one proves better. It will not just be picked on coding value. It will be host of other things as well.

Comment: Re: Video of the presentation (Score 1) 164

by jackspenn (#47031793) Attached to: 30-Day Status Update On LibreSSL
Thank you for posting this. Very insightful and enjoyable to see real world solutions that got me thinking about forking options vs sticking with and fixing initial project. Will be very interesting, my hope is libressl gets enough funding to have some positive competition and/or some cooperation with openssl folks. That way the greater community/ecosystem will win in the end. Love seeing open soure community working to resolve this complex problem. Its the embodiment of principles raised in "The cathedral and the bazaar". Side note: Comment at end about openssl being established in Maryland (NSA?) and suggestion of incompetence vs maliciousness really got my head spinning.

Comment: Re: Motivated rejection of science (Score 2, Interesting) 661

Where is the correct science in "global warming", from where I am standing it is all political BS.

Several examples:

1). Why is it that all of the computer models to date have overestimated the temperature increase (i.e. these models have failed to fit what has been observed,. The best example is the hockey stick curve from back in the day. When in reality the averages are flat).
2). Why was it that the "scientists" at Cern were so dishonest regarding GW? There are e-mails where this "scientists" decide to use site numbers instead of recorded GPS or physical locations, then move the sites southward for each year of recorded observations. So when peer reviewed it would appear temperatures were increasing at the same location. When peers asked the the specific locations, they got responses like Siberia. That is not quality science, that is not reproducible.
3). Where is the control, where is the one single variable change? When we cannot accurately predict if it will rain in a certain region tomorrow or the temperature over the next 5 days, how is it wrong to suspect we cannot do it for 1, 5,10 or 100 years?
4). If this is science,why the push to get everyone to agree? Why not simply suggest people look at the data and decided for themselves? Why the need to push it down our throats? Why the uproar if a state lets teachers, parents and students think for themselves how they wish to review the information?
5). Need I remind you that Galileo was in the minority regarding his Sun centered model? Do you think those in the majority punishing him and his supporters, putting them down, insulting them, in very much the exact why you do? "97% of us think this way", which, does nothing to indicate you are correct. Those in the majority had all sorts of exceptions, just like GW supporters do today. They would claim there is "a flywheel type force ...", just like you today say things like "The extra heat is going into the oceans, very very very deep, yes yes that is it, when we have our computer models push the heat into the deepest parts of the ocean where we have the luxury of not having temperature samples, thus allowing us room to explain away the drift between reality and BS simulations."
6). Why is it that you use lies to support your image? My favorite being video of ice that is expanding and then failing into the ocean when talking about ice melting. My second favorite is when you show that a sad little polar bear on an ice sheet and say "the polar bear are running out of food and space and dying off, and that is why they are now coming up on human towns and locations, they just don't have enough food." And much how you fudged the site locations with Cern's bogus data, you ignore the fact that there are more polar bear today then ever recorded and that is why they are coming up to people and you even push to have them declared endangered, ignoring the truth that there are more now, but instead point to the few places where numbers are down, while completely ignoring the truthful where numbers are actually rising.
7). Why does every "solution" happen to fight your political end? My favorite, being "cows eat grass and grains and fart a lotas a result so we need to tax people for eating beef." Oh, really, why not flip it? Since I eat beef, every cow I consume isn't farting, so I am helping whereas vegan aren't. But wait, every vegan and vegetarian I know does fart more then the average meat eater. So why is the "solution" not to tax kale and spinach? The answer is that this has nothing to do with a real problem, it is all about using an imagined global issue to advance some honestly retarded political agendas and as an excuse to rob individuals of control, which brings me the the final point.
8). What is worse? The temp. going up a few degrees in my lifetime or governments and global organizations robbing individuals or their liberties? What is more damaging to be hot or have to adjust or to be effectively a slave to society? What is more damaging to the children that come after us? A hotter planet (assuming your BS was true) or the retardation of their rights and liberties? When viewed that way clearly "global warming" is not he biggest and most pressing threat to people at this time, it is the rise of collectivism.
9). One last point, why the push to rebrand your GW science? Why is it that GW supporters are now pushing towards using the term climate change? Because they aren't using science, they are using emotion, with GW, you can only point to things that are hotter or the result of it being hotter, with climate change, you can point to every disaster or event, why the storm? CC, why the colder winter? CC, etc. Then you ask who believes in climate change? Hell, I believe in climate change, I call it the seasons. So you can quickly get a high % of perceived support, like say 97%, but in truth that 97% is not describing or saying they agree with you.

Comment: Re:Pathetic (Score 5, Insightful) 683

by jackspenn (#46073635) Attached to: VC Likens Google Bus Backlash To Nazi Rampage
Why does this anonymous coward get to decide what is good and what is bad for the rest of us?

This is one part I hate about socialism and communism, these centralized economic systems allow for people (or committees of people) no smarter and often less intelligent than the common individual to make arbitrary decisions for the greater good.

The beauty of capitalism (and why the US should work to get back to a pure capitalist society) is that each of us as individuals can decide for ourselves, vote with our money, with our goods, with our services and support things we like and ignore things we do not.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.