Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: cryptographic hash (Score 4, Interesting) 127

by marvinglenn (#43126655) Attached to: U.S. ISBN Monopoly Denies Threat From Digital Self-Publishing
Especially for digital books, but to be used on the digital information that a regular book is printed from... a cryptographic hash of the book is the book identifier. Decentralized, unlikely to have a number collision, and the added bonus of a mechanism to make sure that the book you received is the book you wanted. The only thing that needs to be centralized is the decision of which hash to use, how to hash the data, and how to represent the hash as to the user.

Comment: a simpler solution (Score 1) 642

by marvinglenn (#42929881) Attached to: The US Redrawn As 50 Equally Populated States

While TFA is an interesting approach, the simpler solution to one of the main thrusts in TFA (of having equal EC representation/distribution) is to simply change the EC to where each congressional district (or in this case, electoral district) is autonomous and controls its own vote independent from the rest of the state it's in.

Even if the two extra EC vote afforded each state are kept, I see this as a far better system than a strait popular vote system. Why? Because the EC has a side effect of doing something amazingly positive that few realize. It contains vote fraud to within the state it happens in.

Consider this for example: Imagine a politically corrupt jurisdiction in your state. Imagine that they start cranking out fraudulent votes. The votes they dilute are limited to the vote in their state. But in a popular vote system, they now dilute everyone's vote. By tweaking the EC system to treat congressional districts autonomously, the fraud is contained even further.

And since congressional districts are explicitly drawn to contain apportioned sections of the population (given a few constraints of not crossing state boundaries and the like), the goal towards equal vote weighting is more naturally furthered.

Comment: Re:Post bigotry here (Score 1) 1113

by marvinglenn (#41577761) Attached to: US House Science Committee Member: Evolution Is a Lie From Hell

You can't be bigoted against an idea.

But if you hold a particular idea, can you be called a bigot and be summarily dismissed? And those ideas that are generally accepted to be bigoted never get a fair discussion because those that would argue in favor of them are marginalized and dismissed for merely advocating the idea.

Comment: Re:trim/discard (Score 1) 491

by marvinglenn (#35350588) Attached to: SSDs Cause Crisis For Digital Forensics

Are you sure that the flash drives are actually looking at NTFS datastructures? Due to the proprietary and complex nature of NTFS, this sounds like something drive manufacturers would avoid like the plague.

Linux now has decent NTFS support. That lead me to believe that anyone who wanted to implement these GC routines would have enough (indirect) documentation of NTFS internals to do such.

Comment: Re:sad (Score 0) 2166

by marvinglenn (#34808158) Attached to: Congresswoman and Staff Gunned Down

If the attacker turns out to be a tea party paranoid type, then I honestly believe people like Beck hold indirect responsibility for the attack. Incitement to rioting is a crime; so, in a (non-legal) way, is the winking threats and paranoia that's been on the airwaves for too long.

So what you're saying is... that you don't watch Beck, but you believe what his adversaries say about him. Okay. At least I know how informed you are.

Comment: Re:Lets call it what it really is... (Score 1) 945

by marvinglenn (#34691732) Attached to: The Right's War On Net Neutrality

The reality is that Net Neutrality has nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with carriers wanting to enjoy common carrier protections without having to provide common carrier openess.

I don't have mod points, so I have to post. It's discouraging to see so much lefty-Flavor-Aid blather here at +5, and something like this only sitting at +4 (at the time of me seeing it).

Comment: wasn't there a feceral circuit precedent on this? (Score 1) 134

by marvinglenn (#33920624) Attached to: Congress Investigates Carriers' Debt Collections
If I'm recalling correctly, the federal 9th circuit struck down the binding arbitration clause of the contract in a suit against Verizon, stating that a cell phone contract is a contract of adhesion, and that one can not sign away their rights to legal recourse. I'm sure read this from a story linked from a /. front page post. I don't have the time to find this, but hopefully my post will jog someone's memory and they'll get a +5 comment for recalling it.

Comment: Re:Bad consequences (Score 1) 758

by marvinglenn (#33547782) Attached to: Court Says First Sale Doctrine Doesn't Apply To Licensed Software

You know what their response to that is? It's very simple: "Right, you're buying a license."

It probably is their response. It may be even more flippant... "Right, you're buying a box". Everyone need to push back and state that such is not the way to convey such in our language. That they need to explicitly state that the price is for the priveledge to enter into a license agreement with them for use of their software, and that a reasonable jury will interpret the language of "buying the product" to mean "buying the product".

Of course, I may still be under the misguided impression that our world still has a good percentage of reasonable people.

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...