Forgot your password?

Comment: It's possible to care less (Score 2) 330

It's "could NOT care less", you stupid, American cretin...

It's technically correct because they could, in fact, care less. If they couldn't care less, then they wouldn't be posting about it now would they? (Though I do think the proper "could HARDLY care less" is both more accurate and more descriptive)

Comment: Re:Why such paranoia ? (Score 1) 266

Your sarcasm aside, turn the idea around and convince me there is any situation short of an emergency where the big evil government would use this power even if they had it?

They don't even need to ever brick a phone. The knowledge that the government could, should they choose to, brick your or even everyone's phones would have a chilling effect. And that's assuming that the government requested backdoor only bricks your phone, as opposed to also having the capability to track your GPS and activate your microphone and camera. And if that's not the current step it's the next step.

Comment: Would be awesome (Score 2) 615

by penguinoid (#47714819) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

Would also require that people be able to run most of the apps they want in Linux. Note that though this has long been a problem, the increase in web-based apps is slowly eroding the relevance of any specific OS. Even for games, though the quality of web-based games will always be inferior. And (nearly) everyone likes to play games.

Comment: Re:Complete, total, and utter (Score 1) 464

by penguinoid (#47708733) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Obstructing traffic. If you're going too slow (even if it is the speed limit), then you could be obstructing traffic. This will be true all the time when there aren't extra lanes, and also if you are very slowly passing someone else who is going just below the legal speed limit.

If you don't believe me, try going the legal speed limit in places like bridges and tunnels where people aren't allowed to switch lanes, or passing someone who is going 0.001 mph below the speed limit.

Comment: Re:Safety vs Law (Score 1) 464

by penguinoid (#47708677) Attached to: Google's Driverless Cars Capable of Exceeding Speed Limit

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is 100% the fault of the person making an unsafe lane change if there is an accident, NOT the person who was driving too slow for your taste.

Also, if you find yourself incapable of judging a law, please do your fellow citizens a favor and move to a non-democratic country where your disability will be appreciated. Just because a law says one person is in fully in the right and another is in the wrong, doesn't mean that in reality everyone involved including the authors of the law aren't in part responsible for the result.

If a law who's purpose is supposed to be safety actually increases accidents, that's a problem for me, for you, and for the person who wrote the law. It doesn't matter whether it's actually the fault of reality rather than the law, that the law increases accidents. As I said before, the problem is that the result of the law is dangerous speed differentials which result in accidents. This could be resolved by either increasing the speed limit so that the safest speed is legal (by reducing the slow outliers), or increasing enforcement so that the safest speed is legal (by reducing the average traffic speed to that of the previously slow outliers). And if you think the revenue from speeding tickets plays no role in this situation, once again I invite you to move to a non-democratic country where your lack of critical thinking will be appreciated.

Comment: Re:This actually makes perfect sense. (Score 3, Informative) 113

by hey! (#47708377) Attached to: Scientists Find Traces of Sea Plankton On ISS Surface

Except water vapor is the gaseous form of water; the plankton would have to be transported on individual molecules of water to reach the ionosphere.

If plankton were transportable in microscopic *droplets* in the troposphere as you suggest, a more plausible explanation is that the equipment was contaminated -- both the station itself and the gear used to test it.

Comment: Re:Trust, but verify (Score 1) 168

I disagree. It means trust but don't rely entirely on trust when you have other means at your disposal.

Consider a business deal. You take the contract to your lawyer and he puts all kinds of CYA stuff that supposedly protects you against bad faith. But let me tell you: if the other guy is dealing in bad faith you're going to regret getting mixed up with him, even if you've got the best lawyer in the world working on the contract. So you should only do critical deals with parties you trust.

But if the deal is critical, you should still bring the lawyer in. Why? Because situtations change. Ownership and management change. Stuff can look different when stuff doesn't go the way everyone hoped. People can act differently under pressure. Other people working at the other company might not be as trustworthy as the folks sitting across the table from you. All kinds of reasons.

So you trust, but verify that the other party can't stab you in the back, because neither method is 100% effective. It's common sense in business, and people usually don't take it personally. When they *do*, then that's kind of fishy in my opinion.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman