Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:the solution: (Score 3, Insightful) 430

by prisoner-of-enigma (#48040157) Attached to: The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine

I think your post, while well thought out, misses the point of an armed citizenry. No one is realistically thinking a lightly-armed, poorly-trained citizenry can effectively wage war against a well-equipped, well-trained professional military force. Nor do I think anyone is suggesting a straight up guerrilla-style campaign for asymmetric warfare.

No, the point of an armed citizenry is to give the government pause. An unarmed populace can be brought to heel without much in the way of bloodshed. But an armed populace? Even a lightly-armed one means the government can't just march in and round up potential dissidents. There is the strong possibility of a firefight. Sure, the little guys will probably lose. But it means the government must escalate to lethal force just to get started on whatever nefarious course it may be planning for its citizens.

In a way, it's little like conventional vs. nuclear combat between nation-states. When both sides were purely conventional, wars were fairly common (call this analogous to both sides being armed with swords). When one side has nukes and the other does not, the side with nukes gets its way pretty much whenever it wants without ever having to drop a nuke (analogous to a police state with a disarmed citizenry). But when both sides are equally armed with dangerous weapons that require either side to really think about whether they want to invite a deeply damaging and dangerous get very few actual wars (analogous to an armed state and armed citizenry).

If I'm unarmed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, not only can I not stop them, but I probably can't even inflict significant harm on them. They will most likely even take me alive, without a protracted fight. The risk to them in this case, both in blood and bad PR, is minimal.

If I'm armed and the government (for whatever reason) decides I need to be removed, they will most likely succeed. I will, however, most likely succeed in causing casualties and/or making a big PR spectacle of being taken down. I might even achieve martyr status if I'm killed, causing a PR debacle for the government. The government will want to avoid these things, thus they will try to find means other than brute force of arms to remove me. Or they might not remove me at all, deeming the political risk too high. This is why we need to be armed. Not as a credible army-in-waiting, but as a deterrent.

+ - Munich Council say talk of LiMux demise is greatly exaggerated->

Submitted by ndogg
ndogg (158021) writes "The rumors of Munich city going back to Microsoft seem to have been greatly exaggerated. There was a review of the city's IT systems that was called for by the mayor, but it wasn't solely just to decide on whether to move back to Microsoft. And while there have been complaints about LiMux, they mostly seem to concern compatibility with, which may well be resolved by switching to LibreOffice."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Ethernet still the best (Score 1) 260

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47721329) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

It still raises the question of exactly what you plan to do data-wise that will require 40Gbit Ethernet. While I admit nobody knows what the future holds, we can make reasonable extrapolations. Word and Excel documents aren't going to magically ballon in size. It's highly unlikely you run a 100TB database on your home server. MP3's and even FLAC audio files aren't magically growing in size, and even some new fangled HD audio format an order of magnitude bigger wouldn't stress GigE. Your Internet connection isn't going to be 40Gbit anytime soon (and even if it was, your ISP is unlikely to provide an upstream link that isn't woefully oversubscribed). Netflix 4K streaming already works fine over typical 20Mbit Internet service. And as I stated in earlier posts, even Blu-ray's, which are the higest definition standard media currently available for sale (with no real successor in sight) peak at 40Mbit/sec with average bitrates well below that.

The only conceivable thing that's even remotely close to logical would be uncompressed 4k video editing. And most people do that off high-speed local storage array or, if you're a big boy, a Fibre Channel array. If you've got the need for a FC array at home...well, my hat's off to you. You're unique.

Comment: Re:Ethernet still the best (Score 2) 260

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47721249) Attached to: How many devices are connected to your home Wi-Fi?

Seriously, unless you plan on having the need to stream uncompressed 4K video to every corner of your house, Cat6A is ridiculous overkill. The average Blu-ray video stream is well under 40Mbit/sec, and that's decent HD for almost anyone. 4K could maybe quadruple that (depends on codec) but you STILL have plenty of bandwidth for something like that in plain Gigabit Ethernet. Hell, you could put perhaps 6-8 4K streams on GigE and still be fine.

And there's really no logic in trying to future-proof your home network for something that's not going to be remotely affordable until maybe 10 years from now (have you priced 10Gbit gear lately???). In that time frame, lots of things can and will change and the likelihood of you still wanting AND being able to use that Cat6A for its original purpose is dubious.

Comment: And I want... (Score 1) 727

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47714829) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

And I want a week long orgy with the Victoria's Secret supermodels, but I'm intelligent to know the likelihood of that happening is pretty damned small. Linus should be exhorbitantly happy Linux has made the inroads it has in the server and mobile markets. Desktop, if it ever does follow, will probably not resemble "desktop" as we now know it.

Comment: Re:Who needs oil? (Score 1) 305

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47707929) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion would break the stranglehold of petro-exporting countries in the Middle East as well as belligerent exporters like Russia and Iran.

You're assuming said fusion plants would be radically cheaper to construct and operate than existing fission plants...something the anti-nuclear activists would probably complicate despite the obvious benefits of fusion over fission. Never underestimate the public fear of the word "nuclear" even if the processes involved are ridiculously different.

I can hear the rallying cry now: "They want to build a plant that works the same way as a thermonuclear bomb! Do you want a nuclear bomb IN YOUR BACKYARD???"

People are still terrified of fluoride in their water. Can you imagine their reponse to the above?

Comment: The power of the future... (Score 2) 305

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47707879) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion power is roughly 20 years away from being viable...and has been for the last 40 years LOL.

Seriously, I'll start worrying about proliferation risks when a commercially viable fusion reactor DESIGN is created. Building one -- assuming it's ever viable to begin with -- would take years, which is plenty of time to address proliferation concerns before it came online.

Comment: How big is it? (Score 5, Insightful) 184

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47619125) Attached to: Man-Made "Dead Zone" In Gulf of Mexico the Size of Connecticut

To put this in perspective, 5,000 sq. mi. is a square about 71 miles on a side. Compare this to the total area of the Gulf (615,000 sq. mi) and you'll see this "dead zone" occupies just 0.8% of the Gulf. Is this something that needs addressing? Absolutely. But it's not some horrific cauldron of death like the headline tries to make it out to be.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 667

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47500643) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

It seems that the launch site has been rather precisely determined. Perhaps you missed that memo.

And no matter how much evidence the US or Ukrainian government produces, no matter how detailed and annotated, Russia will dismiss it with a wave of a hand as fabricated, slanted, biased...whatever they want. They'll never admit responsibility.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 667

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47500627) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

What they need to do is to organize UN peacekeeper mission there, not wage proxy war with US.

Yes, because UN peacekeepers have such a long, sterling reputation on stopping stuff like this from happening.

But regardless, the UN will never do anything in this conflict. Russia holds a veto in the Security Council, and they will stop any such measures from ever happening.

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"