Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not the holder's money (Score 1) 91

by postbigbang (#48430569) Attached to: UNSW Has Collected an Estimated $100,000 In Piracy Fines Since 2008

Unlikely.

The university can fine you for parking violations, smoking where you're not supposed to, being in wanton possession of whatever.

Should they want to turn your name over to another entity with whom you've performed allegedly bad behaviour, they can do that. Or not, should it suit them.

Comment: Re:morality a hindrance or help? (Score 1) 194

by postbigbang (#48422849) Attached to: Is a Moral Compass a Hindrance Or a Help For Startups?

Ends justifying the means gives rise to lots of bad stuff. I'll avoid politics as a citation. Instead, I'll choose organizations that focus on morality, their customers, their employees, as well as their investors.

In each case, if you pick amoral customers, employees, or investors, any one of the three will bring you down, because each has a greed stake, rather than a value stake, in the outcome of the working machine that is the organization.

Those managing the organization can pick moral or amoral, each with decidedly different outcomes. Tossing aside morality for short periods will upset the equations of long term success. If you're going for short term success, then it's your soul that counts. If you have one.

Comment: Re:Early adopters (Score 4, Insightful) 154

The fulcrum of backlash against the device in an almost uniform, vehement, and studied way exposing Google's complete disdain for respect of privacy might have something to do with it as well. Pulling back the Oz Curtain and exposing that Google's business model is the complete ownership of your personal information for their profit might be just too much advance with just one product.

Comment: Re:What's the Difference? (Score 1) 102

by postbigbang (#48373381) Attached to: Amazon Goes After Oracle (Again) With New Aurora Database

There's also a HUGE ecosystem, very profitable, that after two dozen years, actually works-- expensive as it is. Oracle DBAs and SQL coders aren't the sort of person that's after the latest "edgy" new db scheme.

I would venture that most of them don't like JSON, have no clue for hadoop, and are the online/never-fail sorts. They're not going to use REST against an AJAX app, are clueless about puppet, and believe in middleware. Not gonna get them to fix what they perceive as not-broken.

There is a small amount of wisdom in this philosophy, but like COBOL, mainframes/minis, and AS/400s/AIX, time will eventually pass them by, slowly, but unerringly, IMHO.

Comment: Re:CYA (Score 1) 127

And if either the banks, the retailers, and/or any member of the supply chain gave up a single point in transactions TO UPGRADE THEIR SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE and SELF POLICE, then government interaction would be unnecessary and consumer safety would soar.

It's always someone else's problem, and someone else needs to eat the costs. So crappy POS, putting your fingers in your ears when IT warns you that your systems are about to explode, be breached, or become a PR nightmare, are all OK because it's the other guy's problem, never your own.

Fuck that.

Comment: Re:Which way are the bits going? (Score 1) 97

by postbigbang (#48295945) Attached to: Real Net Neutrality Problem: 'Edge Provider' vs 'End User'

Most of it, to the last mile or so, is in the ground in the US.... there's tons of dark fiber waiting to be lit up.

Fuck corporations turning a profit. This is a utility, not a bunch of regional monopolies masquerading as public beneficiaries. Governments and PEOPLE get easement and right-of-way income. There are lots of models as to how this can be done.

Pioneers like Loma Linda, CA, DIgital Cities, and others show how to make it work financially, and no, not some sort of neo-socialist/commie model.

Should there be those profiting? Sure. No argument. The current model of monopoly by legislative bribery just has to end, however.

Comment: Re:Which way are the bits going? (Score 1) 97

by postbigbang (#48293133) Attached to: Real Net Neutrality Problem: 'Edge Provider' vs 'End User'

It ought to be, nodes are nodes, but we're talking about the difference between telco legacy interconnect and the dawn of Internet "hotels" which were aggregations near NAP points and convenient telco interconnects. This is what was the problem: ATM, SONET, and other L1/L2 problems. This allowed the concept that some junction points were more important than others, and that an edge device could be poorly provisioned, while big junction points could have nearby CDNs, huge hosts, and so forth.

Add in isometric/QOS protocols, and the lines start to blur further, as we allow multimedia to get priority over non isochronous protocols. We've created protocol priority in the name of not screwing up audio and video feeds. Today, AV feeds permeate and mostly dominate the wires statistically by content type.

Where is the line drawn between QoS protocols, time-sensitive multimedia delivery, brute force bandwidth, and everyone owning the equiv of a Cisco core router?

It's called fiber. FTTH, FTTbedroom, and we need to promulgate fiber transports-- symmetrical ones-- as home edge standards, just like a NEMA 120vac/60hz outlet (or the 220v/ 50-60hz int'l equiv). This at least lifts all boats.

Comment: Re:Gay? (Score 1) 764

by postbigbang (#48275235) Attached to: Tim Cook: "I'm Proud To Be Gay"

None of these are arbitrary. Anyone can be seduced. As a higher species, we bear civil responsibility. Screwing animals isn't responsible.

Screwing children is the same answer. They have insufficient nexus and context to say "yes". They're children.

Consent isn't legal fiction, it's civility. All else is rape.

Comment: Re:Gay? (Score 0) 764

by postbigbang (#48274553) Attached to: Tim Cook: "I'm Proud To Be Gay"

You're conflating pre-disposed behavior with an action, and you forgot: consent. Animals can't give consent. Children can't give consent (and shouldn't need to be asked). Siblings are usually underage during incestuous phases and they can't give consent because they're children.

Being attracted (or not) to any gender can work, but the Judeo/Christian/Islamic ways (subject to some notable exception) argues against non-heterosexual relationships, except asexuality-- which oddly is lauded. Homosexuality doesn't produce offsprings, except in rare cases not worth mentioning (not talking about bisexuality).

Consensual sex is key. We go successfully from "consensual".

Comment: Re:H1B applicants are people too (Score 1) 190

by postbigbang (#48268281) Attached to: Labor Department To Destroy H-1B Records

Redacting sounds good on the surface, but piecing the info back together again is somewhat trivial. Sharpies don't do a great job when you can blow something up to ridiculous multiples, then use pattern recognition to infer the data hidden behind the redaction.

It's better to have Norton AV recognize this as a virus. That'll get rid of it. Yeah. Or give it to an IRS exec in the form of an email.....

Nothing happens.

Working...