Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Ridiculous. (Score 1) 914

No, the basic idea is that other people won't want to do that shit.

That's not going to work. Lots of the time crimes are committed because the person is mentally ill, desperate, or just crimes of passion. The death penalty never really worked as a deterrent I doubt this would either. The chances of them recommiting after being released when you have probably broken them mentally with this punishment are probably higher. Now the case that she was talking about, where the two adults killed that child. They are probably beyond being rehabilitated, that doesn't mean we get to beat them like a dog for it.

Comment: Re:Absolutely (Score 1) 212

by prelelat (#46424101) Attached to: Fedora To Have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" For Contributors

You are right. This solves nothing. What happens when a contributor comes out as being from an embargoed country? Do they remove the code and say oh well? Do they take a heavy fine and possible jail time?

I'm not a lawyer but I find this way of dealing with the problem very dangerous to the community. They need to move the project to a country that will not cause so much problems for it.

Comment: Re:Ouya just isn't compelling (Score 3, Interesting) 134

Your making it sound like a scam. First of all vapourware is something that never ships this did. Second of all they explained the goals and hardware of the device which they have met the hardware goals, though I don't think the software is exactly where it should be. Basically they want to be steambox with android as the OS. It's not a terrible goal but they needed more titles and backing from developers not just people buying it for a set top box that happens to play games. Which is pretty much what people are using it for now it would seem.

Comment: Re:freedom... (Score 3, Informative) 374

by prelelat (#45976903) Attached to: Man Jailed For Refusing To Reveal USB Password

There are two scenarios in forcing someone to hand over information on an encrypted disk.
1) With no evidence of wrong doing they make you hand over information that's encrypted. There is no court order, because there isn't any evidence. It's like passing through security and they want to view secret documents in your locked briefcase. That's not warranted. It's a violation.

2) Court has evidence against you there is an investigation and they court orders you to hand it over. It's the same as asking for the key to your briefcase because they have a warrant to search it. The only difference is, is that if you don't give them the key they can't smash the lock to open it up. If you don't give them the key and they can't open it up they will throw you in jail for disobeying the court. I see that as nothing different than what has happened here.

Now it has been argued I believe successfully that encrypted data should be treated just personal speech which should be protected by the 5th. Now this wasn't the U.S. so this has no barring on the current case. It's quite interesting to think of how this falls. Is it the same as making someone testify or make a statement or is it more like locked files in a cabinet.

So while the scenario in part 1) isn't debatable the scenario in part 2) is. Was this a violation of freedom it's hard for me to say.

The EFFs thoughts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/new-eff-amicus-brief-argues-fifth-amendment-prohibits-compelled-decryption

Comment: Re:"familiar confrontational 60 Minutes style" (Score 1) 117

by prelelat (#45965975) Attached to: Khosla, Romm Fire Back At '60 Minutes' Cleantech Exposé

They probably made a deal in order to do the interview and they probably dictated the type of questions that could be asked. If they deviated they would most likely have either gave some BS question or ended the interview leaving them with nothing for ratings.

The person doing the interview would have been given questions to stay away from and 60 minutes would be happy to have such a high profile person they would have done what they were asked. It's not news it's a stage show.

Comment: Re:There were problems, that is the problem (Score 1) 383

by prelelat (#45957711) Attached to: Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority.

OK it cost them money that sucks for them I'm sure.

I just don't get how you are jumping to Net Neutrality being able to allow the gov more restrictions over data. They could impose that under either model really. Without net neutrality the ISP's are going to be able to impose restrictions.

Net Neutrality is already in place so that extra cost to the ISP it's already done with, the only thing they are missing out on is extra profits from segmenting the connection.

Essentially if things stay the way they are now it's fine, so why change it now? You say that Net Neutrality is a boon for the gov. then why put someone into the chairman seat who was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry? It's more likely that the gov. doesn't want Net Neutrality, or more likely doesn't give a shit.

Bottom line who does net neutrality hurt? Possibly consumers in higher prices but ISP's have already admitted to over inflating the price there is no incentive to drop prices without network neutrality. It hurts ISPs because they can't develop packaged internet services for different services.

If you have some numbers on how network neutrality is costing ISP's more money I would love to see it I find that kind of thing interesting.

Comment: Re:Net Neutrality was BAD. Full stop. (Score 2) 383

by prelelat (#45956039) Attached to: Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority.

There were also no problems while the FCC introduced the rule. So what is your point?

Do you know what the ISP's want to do? They want to make teirs for services like cable and have you pay extra for say streaming netflix services. They could block access to youtube unless you pay the bill.

So? That's how markets work you pay tolls to go places and you pay for goods and services.

What this ends up doing is hurting the openess of the internet. You are so worried about having gov. influence in your service that you didn't even consider corp. influence? Your ISP has a streaming service that they want you to buy into. It's not as good as netflix or amazon prime so they can't compete. So instead they mark up the price of being able to connect to those services instead of subsidizing their own. It closes pathways on the internet and even if you do work around it can cause lag time.

It's not to say that it would happen but it has been suggested by the gentlemen at AT&T and Time Warner.

Now having the net neutrality laws in place what did that do? Maybe it jacked up the price that some ISP's offer their services at, though I highly doubt that. But what it did was keep all of those channels open and not filter things out. They couldn't prevent access to competing systems for a toll.

The reason there wasn't a problem before is because they were doing something crazy, like future proofing the internet from ISPs trying to muck up the openess of the internet. Streaming, gaming, facebook and so much more is now a part of our lives that an open internet for all is very important. It would be like having the great wall of china but instead it's instituted by the Corp. and they block or limit content they don't want you to have.

So I might not be Einstein but the implications of removing net neutrality could be very consequential to everyone.

Comment: Re:Net Neutrality was BAD. Full stop. (Score 2) 383

by prelelat (#45952809) Attached to: Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority.

You trolling me? Net Neutrality was preventative to say that it never stopped anything is like saying that stoplight never stopped anyone from T-boning someone. It didn't happen because the FCC didn't allow it to. I believe most if not all the major ISP's were hoping to have a tiered system and have been saying so for years. It's well documented their lobbying on the matter.

As for the Snowden bullshit do you think for a second that just by not having net neutrality corporations are not going to hand over information to the NSA? Government is going to be involved in data traffic regardless of who is the carrier and how they handle it. They could care less in that regard. That will change nothing with privacy at all. So why allow companies to fuck everyone over with their large oligopoly.

Comment: Re:Shut up and take my money (Score 1) 156

I would buy one right now but it always seems like the retail version is just around the corner. i would rather wait and get a model with tracking and a better screen. I can hardly stop myself from getting the dev model, but I know I won't be able to justify getting the retail one when it comes out then.

Comment: Re:Can't wait (Score 1) 156

That seems a little cynical don't you think? More and more movies are coming out that have a 3D showing if you look I would guess you would notice it trending up for blockbusters and kid movies. I will give you that it doesn't work well at home because passive TVs have been until recently, rare. Passive 3D tv and projectors are also quite expensive right now but watch and I bet you will see a slow trend towards more people buying them as the technology becomes more reasonably priced.

Saying the Oculus is a passing fad is bordering on being a troll, are you a troll? It's more than 3D it makes using your computer an immersed environment. It's like saying TV screens for radio are a silly idea, it brings something that people have been craving for decades. To be right in the action. Think of how much you get into a game and think how much more enjoyable it would be if you could look around, see enemies and depth. Adjust your shots based on distance. Go explore places and feel like you are seeing it as though you are there. Explore 3D models of cars, planes and so on. If they can finish working out the kinks(this article suggests they have made a major leep in doing so) I would snap one up in a heartbeat.

Comment: Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (Score 1) 238

by prelelat (#45731273) Attached to: Tesla Gets $34 Million Tax Break, Adds Capacity For 35,000 More Cars

wow you are looking for things to rag on. If you live in an area with a tesla charge station it free to charge in about 30 minutes. If you don't it's not that expensive compared to a regular car. Which you can charge while you are at home. Unless you are traveling in excess of 160miles a day I find it unlikely on average that you will ever need to stop somewhere and charge your car.

Batteries die and it's a huge huge huge expense this is the only one I see relevant in your post.

If you are going somewhere in a tesla S it can reach up to 300miles and there are more and more tesla charging stations popping up. Usually somewhere close to services like food. Most people typically get out and stretch for a bit every few hundred miles. I'm not saying you might have to stop and rest when you don't want to, or that right now you might end-up somewhere that you have to stay over night to charge your car, but that's going to be fade fast if Tesla is able to keep building infrastructure for their cars.

You ran out of a charge on the road, you are just as likely to run out of gas. I think it's easier to find a plugin than a gas station. I think the charge for a tow truck is the same regardless.

Bottom line the only thing that will not be fixed with time(infrastructure and charge times at charging stations) is the battery is going to die. Tesla has been looking at ways to fix this as well. Tesla cars right now are kind of in a beta testing mode, they work, they are cool and most of the flaws have fixes set out for them that need to be implemented. It's going to take time but outside of a battery replacement I don't think having one in the future is going to cost as much as you think.

I took a fish head to the movies and I didn't have to pay. -- Fish Heads, Saturday Night Live, 1977.

Working...