Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:And KDevelope is what exactly? (Score 1) 45

by mrchaotica (#47909031) Attached to: KDevelop 4.7.0 Released

There is a huge amount of FOSS that has an entire "front" web page that tells people in exquisite detail what changes have been made, who contributed, how others can get involved and what bugs are outstanding without ever mentioning what the hell the project does, or what benefits it brings the world.

Quoted for truth!

That said, "KDevelop" is pretty self-explanatory: it's the word "develop" with a "K" in front of it, which pretty obviously (to Slashdotters, at least) means a development environment for KDE. I've never used KDevelop, and in fact haven't even used KDE in at least a decade, but instantly understood anyway.

Now, if we were talking about Gimp or Konqueror or any number of project names pulled straight from /dev/random, then yeah, you're absolutely right.

Comment: Re:So-to-speak legal (Score 2) 377

by mrchaotica (#47908667) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

Anonymous anything will be the first to go!

What do mean, "will be?" Anonymous anything is gone, because Comcast is judge, jury and executioner. Since the Bill of Rights applies to the government but not corporations (to the extent that it applies at all, but I digress...), moving internet service from corporate control to government control is a way to get anonymity back.

Sure, illegal government surveillance could continue, but that situation is already infinitely bad, so it can't get any worse.

The next issue is going to probable cause, uploading to much? Well you must be a criminal copyright violator and their will be be a warrant to search your computer so fast your head is gonna spin.

What, and you think this isn't already the case?! At least if government were the ISP then the police would have to get a warrant to find out how much you're uploading; right now Comcast will just voluntarily tell them!

You don't want Government to have that kinda of control Look at Turkey's internet crack down!

And you think Comcast would act any differently?

Here's the bottom line: you're saying government control is bad, and I would tend to agree. However, my point is that we already have that, except the enforcement has been outsourced to crony capitalists in order to do an end-run around Due Process!

There is no difference between Comcast and the government, except that the government has to at least pretend to respect your rights.

Comment: Re:Moot point... (Score 2) 186

by mrchaotica (#47908497) Attached to: New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

What they were doing may not have even been illegal, which is the whole problem.

Bullshit. What they have doing has always been illegal -- any plain reading of the Constitution shows it. The issue is that people in power (possibly including the Supreme Court) refuse to acknowledge the law, not that it doesn't exist!

Comment: Re:issue | Snowden (Score 3, Insightful) 186

by mrchaotica (#47908429) Attached to: New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

After all, if he didn't raise concerns, then how could they have possibly known there were any issues.

Well, for starters, they could have listened to the last several whistleblowers (e.g. Binney and Drake) who did try to use "official channels" instead of marginalizing them and ruining their lives.

Comment: Re:Misdirection (Score 2) 186

by mrchaotica (#47908361) Attached to: New Details About NSA's Exhaustive Search of Edward Snowden's Emails

If Snowden can show that he applied due diligence by going through the channels to discuss his concerns and was ignored or he felt threatened, he can still try to use whistle-blowing as a defense.

Otherwise, he may have had legitimate concerns, but bypassed normal procedures and just ran off with the stash and caused them to be made public, which is a federal offense, whistle-blower or not.

What are you talking about? Snowden doesn't need a defense, because he'd be an utter moron to ever willingly come back to NSA jurisdiction again.

Aside from that, Snowden knew damn well that "going through the channels" directly results in the NSA ruining your life and burying whatever you were trying to be a whistleblower about. How did he know this? Simple, by learning about what happened to the last few people who tried to be whistleblowers using the "channels!"

In other words, the "official channels" don't work, so trying to say Snowden is guilty because he didn't use them is specious. Any court that accepts such an argument is of the "Kangaroo" or "Star Chamber" variety.

Comment: Re:why? Better for Comcast to not know (Score 2) 377

by mrchaotica (#47908101) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR.

The answer is simple: Comcast has caught on to the fact that there are enough corporatists and totalitarians in Congress who want to gargle their balls that they won't be held responsible no matter what they do. Data-mining, spying, injecting ads into third-party content, and all the other "should-be-illegal" shit not only improves profits but lets the execs get off on their power, with no downside whatsoever because We The People are too fucking clueless to elect people motivated to help us instead of them!

Comment: Re:Fucking Government doesn't care about US (Score 3, Insightful) 72

by mrchaotica (#47901535) Attached to: NSA Metadata Collection Gets 90-Day Extension

Bullshit. The Supreme Court damn well knows the 4th Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) should be interpreted broadly, so as to limit the government as much as possible. They just don't give a fuck because they're partisan, totalitarian bastards!

Comment: Re:This is new? (Score 1) 160

by mrchaotica (#47880833) Attached to: Google Hangouts Gets Google Voice Integration And Free VoIP Calls

Are you sure? There are actually two (possible) dialogs:

  • One is a white-themed dialog with a header labeled with the Google Voice icon + "Google Voice", the choices "Call with Google Voice" and "Call without Google Voice", and a cancel button.
  • The other is a black-themed dialog with a header labeled "Call" and the choices (on my phone) the CSipSimple icon + "[my VoIP number]" and the Dialer icon + "Use Mobile".

If your phone is set up the way I think it is, when making a call from Google Voice you'd see the first, white dialog. If you choose "Call without Google Voice" it would make a normal cellular call. If you choose "Call with Google Voice" it would still make a cellular call, but the number called would be Google Voice's number itself, whereupon it would then be routed through Google's servers and then to its destination. But it would still use cellular voice protocols between you and Google. (Your phone would report that it called the number you told it to call, but if you requested a call log from your cellular provider it should show you calling Google instead.)

Comment: Re:This is new? (Score 1) 160

by mrchaotica (#47879825) Attached to: Google Hangouts Gets Google Voice Integration And Free VoIP Calls

If you try to dial out with Google Voice, it pulls up whatever app is registered to handle dialing phone numbers and makes a call with that. If you only have one such app -- e.g., the system Dialer app -- then it uses that and completes the call as a "real cellular call" using voice minutes. (On my device, it prompts me to choose between the system dialer and my VoIP app, but I only see the prompt because I have multiple programs to handle that intent.)

Try it when on Wi-Fi without a cellular connection and you'll see that it fails.

OS/2 must die!

Working...