Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Government for The People or Corporations (Score 1) 386

by jeff13 (#46833421) Attached to: F.C.C., In Net Neutrality Turnaround, Plans To Allow Fast Lane

There's a thread of rather amusing ignorance about government and corporate interests happening all through here, I had to comment. Well rant really - There's more than a few people saying that corporate interests, either as just a natural outcome of superior innovation or whacking gobs of cash, won out here because that's Capitalism. Others lament that government, in this case the FCC, only exists to serve itself, not The People (which is their mandate), and thus like all government is naturally going to defer to it's nature.

What kind of social Darwinian claptrap is this?

Face it. The truth is the problem is money in government. It's way out of control and that's why the FCC has deferred to corporate interests. Essentially moving to turn the Internet into your cable TV box, or radio frequency spectrum sell offs. Which we here are ALL against. Why? It's the fact that the FCC and the lobbiests for those corporations are THE SAME FUCKING GUYS. The "revolving door" of people who have worked at the FCC then "moved on" to lobby positions at these corporations is wide open. That's the problem. That's why this, ultimately, happened. There has been legislation against this 'revolving door' in the past (I'm sure someone will point that out) but it was just fucking ignored. Lobbiests like this are supposed to refrain for something like a year. Didn't happen. They showed up in Washington the next day. Literally! No one was fined, arrested, or even saw a raised eyebrow.

So please, let's speak of the reality of what's happening at the FCC instead of vomiting bullshit theories about the "nature" of shit. M'k?

Comment: wait... (Score 1) 132

U.S. tech firms have ideas? Last I saw it was just a lot of - "how can I completely manipulate, patent troll, and keep an iron grip on this market"?

Really, if you think Facebook or Google is somehow a wonderful idea, you don't understand markets. It's also a major reason the US top tech firms are failures, really, and why they have to maintain those markets so no one notices. It's a self destructive cycle.

Comment: Re:F-35 is not just American (Score 1) 298

by jeff13 (#46557859) Attached to: Iran Builds Mock-up of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier

Because the F-35 is, I shit you not, IS, an American plane. That's a fact.

Wow, you just had to completely fuck that up in your head and then post it on one of the most read tech sites in the world. You are just fabulously fucking stupid. There really should be some sort of voting radio button for 'fabulously fucking stupid'. Something so marvelously and completely wrong that it needs to be stickied or pinned or some such thing, just so the rest of the world can see the drop dead idiocy one individual is capable of. Bravo. *golf clap*

Comment: Re:Interesting history and tech, but... (Score 1) 353

I'm replying rather late, but I wanted to say thanks for the added history david_thornley.

The US provided materials to Britain well before they entered the war, which is why I mentioned the US. Heck, the US would provide materials secretly too! As a Canadian, it's well known that US materials for planes would be secretly moved over the US border to Canada and then promptly assembled then flown (by famously female pilots) over the Atlantic.

Oh yea, and david_thornley... best .sig ever. lol! :)

Comment: Hmmmm (Score 4, Interesting) 704

by jeff13 (#46396923) Attached to: Bitcoin Exchange Flexcoin Wiped Out By Theft

Ya know, I'm reminded of the words of one William K. Black (UMKC School of Law), economist and, and the only combination of the two to exist, a criminologist. He was once asked, what is the best way to rob a bank? His answer was; 'be a banker'.

Really, the entire Bitcoin story has been one that was highly suspicious all along. Have you ever read a Bitcoin story that didn't make your left eyebrow raise like Mr. Spock in a room full of illogic? I watched 'The Wolf of Wall Street' recently and thought, *pffft*, soooo dated. I reckon in 20 years someone in Hollywoodland will catch up with reality enough to make a film in that vein about Bitcoin.

Comment: Interesting history and tech, but... (Score 1) 353

Just a comment on the comments... plz 'scuse.

This is interesting history and technology, and I love articles about them both. However, all the posts here seem to be arguing the finer points of whether some difference in technology, such as this plane, would have spurred a different outcome to the Battle of Britain if not the entire war. Well, short answer, no. The simple fact about why Britain, with American help, won the Battle of Britain as well as the war in Europe hinges on one giant fact. Massive manufacturing. They could build more planes in a day than Germany could in a month. Ask any pilot in England at the time about that. They will tell you, though they saw all their planes destroyed one day the very next morning brand new ones would be ready to go. Ask them if they were ever, ever, without a plane and they will tell ya, never. Not once.

Arguing the finer points of technology is always fun, but don't let that muddle your sense of reality or history.

Comment: The Oath (Score 5, Interesting) 383

by jeff13 (#46091815) Attached to: Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him

Point of fact, please pay attention.

Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.

It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.

I say again, I shit you not.

This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.

Comment: Kaplan is saying... (Score 1) 573

by jeff13 (#45873665) Attached to: Counterpoint: Why Edward Snowden May Not Deserve Clemency

What is Kaplan saying here? That Snowden should continue to be labeled a spy and traitor? So what I gather is that Kaplan insists that despite the question of the massive illegality of the NSAs programs, the person who brought this to light should NOT be granted the right to a fair trial? Why? Well, Kaplan provides the links we see here. However, I'd say that still doesn't preclude a real legal procedure since it's a Right and further more, his reasoning is just that. I don't see any actual proof of what he claims.

Kaplan writes about foreign policy and his record has always been someone who's towed the Washington line. In fact, in the past he's been known to just make things up, such as in one article where he implied FOXnews reporter James Rosen revealed a CIA agent in North Korea who "may" now be dead. Kaplan had no facts and just threw that out there to smear Rosens record as a "serious journalist". This was at the time Rosen's phone was flat out being tapped by the Justice Dept.

So here we have Kaplan once again towing the Washington line with claims about the harm that Snowdens actions have caused, without any proof. AND implying, as Kaplan is fond of doing, that Snowden is PERHAPS a spy for Russia and/or China because of actions that, erm well, never happened. What kind of logic is this??? Well, seems to me that the articles posted as proof of all this by Kaplan do not demonstrate his point or his, shall we say, inferences.

Seem to me it's a massive rationalization against the right to a fair trial in a country that supposedly loves freedom and the rights of the person above all else.

Every young man should have a hobby: learning how to handle money is the best one. -- Jack Hurley

Working...