Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not just women (Score 2) 536

by jbmartin6 (#48212717) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll
I agree with you this works in a lot of cases. But it seems to me there are major differences in some of the activity I have read about in these cases. One, the sheer level of bullying, hiding behind the Internet, is very different. Death threats, assault threats, "swatting", and so on. Two, they don't just go away. The mere existence of the target seems to enrage a small group of chumps. The Internet makes it easy for them to get together and harass their victim full time. "Just ignore it and they will go away" isn't good advice when they don't go away.

Comment: The sky is falling.....again? (Score 4, Informative) 324

by jbmartin6 (#48202933) Attached to: Hungary To Tax Internet Traffic
This summary is a bit hysterical, in the excessively panicked sense. TFA indicates there is a cap on taxes for both individuals and service providers, and this DRAFT bill is likely to contain the same sort of provisions. Of course, whether such a tax is a good idea is up for debate, but statements like "could set back the country's technological development by some 20 years" are ridiculous. Excise taxes already exist on other goods and services without complete disaster.

Comment: Re:Overly broad? (Score 1) 422

by jbmartin6 (#48188477) Attached to: Soda Pop Damages Your Cells' Telomeres
Did you read the study and find some flaw in the method or conclusions? Or do you have some idea that persons sponsored by organizations you approve of are somehow magically not human (as in subject to bias and cognitive error)? A study isn't credible or not based on who might sponsor it. Sure, sponsorship might indicate that the study should be taken with a grain of salt, but since every result in science should be taken with a grain of salt, what difference does that make? And since the conclusion seems to indicate a bad result for these particular sponsors, do you still think it isn't credible?

Comment: Re:No surprise there... (Score 1) 204

by jbmartin6 (#48140681) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal
Did we? Verizon was doing no such thing. Netflix was coming into Verizon over congested links. There was no 'throttle' any more than the government is 'throttling' your car doing your local rush hour. Netflix paid to get a dedicated link, problem solved. It isn't a question of neutrality or 'slow lanes' on the Internet, it is a question of physical limitations trumping wishful thinking.

Comment: Re: IRL (Score 1) 204

by jbmartin6 (#48140619) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal
OK, so if two parties decide to make a huge number of calls to each other and overwhelm the system, who should pay for the extra capacity? Are you saying the phone company should be expected to provide infinite capacity at no additional charge? That doesn't seem in line with physical reality.

Comment: Re:Boycott will end this in less than a week (Score 1) 204

by jbmartin6 (#48140593) Attached to: Netflix Video Speed On FiOS Doubles After Netflix-Verizon Deal
You misunderstood the point. If Comcast charges each subscriber an extra $5, for example, in order to pay for Netflix traffic infrastructure, this is undesirable since any given subscriber may or may not be using Netflix. Now, if they had some sort of metering system to only charge Netflix users the extra, well that would violate 'net neutrality'.

Comment: That's not a solution (Score 1) 94

by jbmartin6 (#48123055) Attached to: How Poor Punctuation Can Break Windows

The solution is to use proper coding practices

This approach is partly why breaches continue to happen. Imagining that somehow many thousands of coders will always do things right over many thousands of projects is the stuff dreams are made of. An actual effective solution would be to provide an environment where the application coder can't screw it up.

Comment: Re:A lock on the door? (Score 1) 221

by jbmartin6 (#47958693) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach
Exactly. So many people go in and out of there at all hours, what would be the point of a lock? The article doesn't follow up what this comment was supposed to mean, I thought perhaps it meant there was no way to bar the door in the event of an emergency. Like on TV when a big steel panel descends from the ceiling. I wonder if they have something like that, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear they don't since their plan is to rush the President out of there rather than try to defend an old building/museum.

Swap read error. You lose your mind.