Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Say what you will but this is cool (Score 1) 52

by ScentCone (#47787217) Attached to: Google Testing Drone Delivery System: 'Project Wing'

So where does the liability lie when these things fall out of the sky, or collide with helicopters, planes, trains or automobiles? How will they "innovative" around that?

Where does the liability lie when a UPS truck backs over a baby stroller, or a FedEx delivery person loses control of a handtruck full of boxes and breaks someone's ankle? Where's the liability when an aircraft flown by DHL crashes short of the airport and burns a row of houses to the ground?

You make it sound like small plastic/foam flying wings with four battery-powered motors are the first dangerous thing that business has ever considered operating, and that there's no such thing as the liability insurance industry. Which means you're clueless about the real world, or just trolling. Or both.

Comment: Re:Say what you will but this is cool (Score 1) 52

by ScentCone (#47783909) Attached to: Google Testing Drone Delivery System: 'Project Wing'

Because everyone knows they just wouldn't work in our current world, let alone the laws that would prevent its flight.

But we have laws, passed by the legislature, that mandate the FAA publish new rules specifically covering the integration of this sort of thing into the NAS by 2015. The Obama administration has said, though, that they won't comply with the law, and are taking every opportunity to hinder this sort of thing. There's a reason that outfits like Google are now spending money, hiring, and testing in other countries: because those countries are less hostile to ventures like this.

There's absolutely NO reason in the world why the tests that Google is doing in Oz couldn't be done with farmers just like those in the article, but living instead in rural Iowa or Ohio or California. But no, the administration keeps releasing increasingly bizarre, increasingly punitive, increasingly job-killing "interpretation" of the 2012 law, with spin that runs exactly counter to the plain language and intent of congress. Thank you, Mr. Obama, for chasing ever more innovation and growth out of the country.

Comment: Re:old but somewhat effective (Score 1) 97

How many times will we hear a claim of "Russia invaded the Ukraine" and have that proven false before people ignore it completely?

So, just out of curiosity, what do you get out of spinning your particular flavor of nonsense? Who benefits from you trying to convince people that - despite what they can see with their own eyes - Russia didn't just annex Crimea? That columns of Russian armor with their insignia painted over didn't just roll across the border into southeast Ukraine? Your contention has to be that those events didn't actually happen, despite untold thousands of witnesses pointing out the exact opposite. So, what's your point? What you're saying is so blatantly false and disingenuous on the face of it that - unless you are actually delusional - even you have to know it, even as you type it. So I'm genuinely curious. Are you getting paid to push propaganda, even as you say that propaganda is bad? Or are you just basically a low-grade troll that assumes his audience is utterly uninformed?

Comment: Re:It's all a matter of energy (Score 0) 140

by ScentCone (#47770159) Attached to: Underground Experiment Confirms Fusion Powers the Sun

but the actual neutrino's observed then (and until now) were high energy electron neutrinos

I don't know why these observations are being thought of as a big deal. Why go to all the trouble of building some big underground Italian detector when we can see, right here, that passing neutrinos hit the /. servers and cause apostrophes to appear randomly (but due to a quirk of quantum behavior, almost always right in front of the letter 's').

Comment: Re:The death of leniency (Score 1) 601

by ScentCone (#47769343) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

If cops couldn't let thousands of people off per day on minor things, those minor things would cease to be illegal and our legal code would finally have some semblance of sanity.

You're right. If a cop sees you step outside the crosswalk at an intersection, he should have NO choice but to cite you for jaywalking, and generate all of the paperwork and costs involved, whether or not the reason you stepped out of the cross walk was to avoid walking through a big puddle of hydraulic fluid that was just spilled by a trash truck. It's situations like that where a cop's body cam might very well record such an infraction, and in the name of ridding society of any potentially abused judgement calls, we should use that technology to make sure that everyone involved toes the line, literally and figuratively. We can't have judgement calls! Your judgement call that we shouldn't is good enough for me.

Comment: Re:The death of leniency (Score 2) 601

by ScentCone (#47769291) Attached to: U.S. Senator: All Cops Should Wear Cameras

It seems to indicate that the poor, defenseless disenfranchised police officers are the victims in all of this

No, the victims are the residents and business owners in a trashed place like Ferguson where a bunch of idiots decided that wrecking the place is the right reaction to events like that lovable big lug, Mike Brown, being shot for no reason whatsoever. We know it was for no reason because thoroughly reliable witnesses (like, the guy who was within him when Lovable Big Mike, the 6'-4" 300-pound Gentle Giant was intimidating a retail clerk) said so, and the witness who said he was "shot in the back, execution style" said so. Except both witnesses are full of crap, and they know it. The cop who got his face mashed by this giant guy would indeed have had an easier time of it if Lovable Giant Mike's altercation with the cop inside the cruiser had been recorded. But more importantly, there's a chance that a lot of people's businesses wouldn't have been wrecked by people who came in from out of town specifically to trash the place and steal stuff with the tacit blessings of guys like Al Sharpton.

Comment: Re:Maybe he should consider learning a language (Score 1) 548

For those who aren't aware, an idiom is a group of words that have a meaning other than their literal interpretation.

And in this case, the idiom is "I couldn't care less." Most of the time it's not literally true, but it conveys the sense that the person using the idiom considers whatever it is being described as being at or near the very bottom of the list of things he cares about. So low on the list that in practical terms, he couldn't care less.

So when someone says the opposite of that ("I could care less"), it's not even a nod to the actual concept - it's just someone making sounds similar to the sounds in the idiom, without actually thinking about the words they're saying. By your thinking, "I wooden flare lens" would also be an idiom because if you mutter it badly enough it also sounds like the real idiom.

Comment: Maybe he should consider learning a language (Score 2, Insightful) 548

Like, perhaps, English. So that he could - after all these years as a professional who types out strings of characters that very specific meaning - understand that when he says "could have cared less about my career," he means "could NOT have cared less about my career."

Maybe he's been working all these years in languages that don't incorporate the concept of "not" or " ! " in evaluating two values. Are there any? I couldn't care less. Grown-ups who communicate or code for a living should be able to handle that one correctly.

Comment: Not an estate, and not huge. (Score 2) 108

by ScentCone (#47713995) Attached to: World's First 3D Printed Estate Coming To New York
When did having a pool turn a mid-size home into an "estate?"

And ... 2400 square feet is "huge?" I'm sure millions and millions of people will be delighted to discover that, all the sudden, they are living on huge estates.

Somebody's been watching too many "tiny home" hipster cult reality cable shows.

Comment: Re:No, not the cause of the breach. (Score 1) 89

by ScentCone (#47713917) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

another car ran a red light and you plowed into them it would be all their fault?

Yes. The accident, as simplistically as you're describing it - which implies that "failing" or not, "you" were still able to drive around - is the fault of the driver that broke the law by running the red light. Without that driver's bad driving, the accident would not have occurred. Just like without the Chinese deliberately cracking in to take medical records, they wouldn't have thus been in receipt of those records. Which part of "the data theft cannot happen without a data thief actually acting to do the crime" are you unclear about? Though your car analogy is a bad one, it's very similar to, "You can't be in a collision with a person driving a car through a red light without that other person actually running the red." It's not complicated.

Comment: Re:While Buying Back $1.5 Billion In Stock (Score 1) 207

Have you ever lived paycheck-to-paycheck?

Yes, sometimes for surprisingly long stretches. And one of the reasons for that is the incredibly high taxes that chip away at what would be a middle-class (especially self-employed) income even as other costs of living go up (including especially, spectacularly because of Obamacare, health insurance - in our case, our bottom line was reduced by almost $1k per month more, even as our deductible went up from $2k/year to $12.5k/year - what a deal!). A large part of my income is transferred - very inefficiently, via many poorly run, redundant layers of city, county, state, and federal government - to other people. The only time something the recipients of those transfers transfer something back to me is when I take yet more money - out of what I have left after taxes - and buy something they do, if they work to provide goods or services. And no, not becoming criminals, or not living in diseased squalor isn't them doing something for me in exchange for those taxed days of working, just like you offering to not burn down my house isn't you working to maintain civilization.

Subsidies for the poor do far more...

Like allow the purchase of snack food, smokes and booze via an absurd mechanism for doling out other people's money through debit cards. Like paying for advertising to push government dependency programs that the program administrators (whose pay bonuses depend on getting more people hooked on the programs they run!) find sometimes frustratingly hard to make stick because of that pesky self-reliance instinct found in some communities. Quick, put together a weekly radio drama preaching the entitlement lifestyle! True, media coverage finally shamed the feds into shifting that program a little more under ground.

We recently moved out of our neighborhood of 20 years where, for example, a house a few doors down (like several more within blocks) was owned by the city. It was provided for free (no rent, no utilities to pay for, free Verizon FiOS bundle, free city-paid landscapers coming by regularly to mow the grass) to a 19-year-old woman that a judge decided would be better off no longer associating with her drug-dealing father and brother. The rule? It had to be a no-males-allowed household. So, her mom moved in, too. Hmmm? Who are all of those guys that we see pulling up at all hours? Ah, the local off-hours county cop hired by the neighborhood to hang out near our houses at night (big problem, locally, with MS-13) reported that the two women were now running a flop house and brothel, and a couple of drug dealers they'd invited in were scary enough that he (armed, and in uniform) would never venture near that house without substantial backup. The social workers and city rental property inspectors refused to set foot in the place, having had threats delivered to them at home by MS-13 messengers.

So, every day I got to wake up, put in 12 or 16 hours of work, and might as well have just walked some of my cash right up the street and handed it over to the "poor" household that was receiving 100% county housing subsidies worth about $3500/month, free food, free medical care, free transportation (each of the women piled it on over 12 months until they were morbidly obese, and thus being deemed handicapped, qualified for on-demand free door-to-door personal driver service from the local county transport system's fleet of taxpayer-funded and fueled minivans), and all of the tax-free cash they could squeeze out of the gang members who operated out of their all-female, family-only city-approved Nurturing, Safety, And Growth house. Out on the curb for trash pickup? Boxes for new 60" Sony TVs and similar purchases, week-in, week-out. The house's "guests" and clientele were blocking everyone's parking, leaving trash and broken bottles everywhere, and the home owners' association's attempts to have the residents evicted was met with a legal interception and law suit by a local activist organization claiming it was part of a gentrification conspiracy by outsiders, blah blah blah. The HOA couldn't afford to continue to defend against that crap, and just gave up. The "resident" of the house was the city's social program do-gooders, and they simply refused to communicate about the matter or any complaint, ever, in any way.

So like others on the street, we hemorrhaged a huge bunch of money, setting us back years, and bugged out. And got to hear complaints about what obvious racists we were for leaving. You want social ostracism? Talk to the gang of illegals running a drug and human trafficking operation out of the neighborhood - ask them who was doing the ostracizing. You want disease concerns? Talk to the health inspectors threatened into not stopping by out of fear for their own lives (the main disease they worried about being a knife in the ribs).

In the meantime, the next block over, were acquaintances we'd made from half a dozen other countries - all immigrants who showed up in the US with essentially no resources by local standards, from Romania, El Salvador, Cameroon, Morocco, Brazil, China and more - who were working their asses off, living modestly, and buying small townhouses. Every one of them was panicked at the thought of losing the value of their homes because of the entitlement/subsidy lifestyle showing up in houses across the neighborhood. Those were people who left places rife with the slums you worry about, and who worked harder in the US (with language barrier disadvantages and more) than their "poor" local peers, and were making a real go of it. Entirely because of desire and work ethic, not because of perpetual, infinite (or any) safety nets.

Yes. When an immigrant family from rural Cameroon can - in the course of a few years holding multiple jobs and working their butts off - own a house, buy cars, pay (rather than soak up) taxes and send their kids to private schools for a decent education (despite also paying property taxes to send other people's kids to other schools)... when they can do that while living a block and half away from the other type of household I described, yes, I blame those poor for being poor. Because poverty doesn't go away through government entitlements, housing, and food. Those hand-outs don't fix poverty, they perpetuate it. We have decades of evidence showing that's true, and especially now in places like that neighborhood, multi-generation "poor" households have thriving immigrant families they could be watching and emulating ... but that's way too much trouble when there's free housing, food, medical care, and the rest. When Latino, African, and Asian immigrants can in a few years work their way from essentially poverty to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle while the local "poor" folks simply won't do the very same, exact things day-to-day that the immigrants do in order to be comfortable, I've got no interest in hearing your lecture us about who to blame.

In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.