Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Nobody's neutral because it''s important (Score 1) 129

by rioki (#47972257) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

What people are up in arms is not that the ISPs are shaping traffic*. But that they are using that as an extortion to get the content provides to pay for preferential treatment. That is, pay for bandwidth that was already payed for by the subscriber. Or using it to quench competition to a service they provide. The problem is that there is no world where traffic shaping can exist and rent seeking through these means not.

* For example prioritizing VoIP is something that almost nobody would object to and that is something that is done in ATM networks since they where conceived.

Comment: Re: MAD (Score 1) 288

by rioki (#47971921) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

What are you talking about?! Around 2000 I would have agreed with you that getting cross with Russia would mean very cold winters. But since then the EU; especially Germany have basically removed any significant reliance on Russian natural gas. Russia could vanish off the face of the earth and the EU trade balance would not be effected significantly.

Comment: Re: MAD (Score 1) 288

by rioki (#47971911) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

This always depends on how much it radioactive material is released in total. One or two nukes will not make much; even one nuke per US major city (1-5k) will probably not make Africa or Australia inhabitable.

On the other hand GP's point of a nuke being a revenge weapon is basically stop on. It is the type of weapon you would use as a last act of desperation.

Comment: Re:It is all pork barrel politics (Score 1) 288

by rioki (#47971875) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

Anybody that though a nuclear free world would happen is just ignoring the reality of the situation. The only reason why nuclear weapons are not used (by Nations) is because they simply can not win a nuclear war if the opponent is also armed with nukes. A properly functioning nuclear deterrent is required to maintain the status quo.

The only reasonable thing we can do is reduce the stockpile so we can eradicate humanity only once, instead of ten times and ensure that the weapons are safe (when idle). They may be necessary to prevent nuclear extortion, but we don't have to sink more money into it then necessary.

Comment: Re:Hosted in the US? (Score 4, Insightful) 92

by rioki (#47971805) Attached to: Service Promises To Leak Your Documents If the Government Murders You

This is exactly the problem. Sure you could devise a scheme that would be reasonably safe. But the moment you rely on somebody else to do it and you hand him over the entire lot in the clear you are lost. That is the high value place where you can bet all your fortune on the fact that the NSA/CIA will have tapped that spot. For me this kind of service looks like a "whistleblower detection service" for the NSA/CIA. Even if they don't reed the data (they don't need to), they can detect any would be whistleblowers by monitoring the communication channels. One they have a fix on the individual they can talk to them about patriotism and possible health issues of their loved ones.

Comment: Re:I hate to be this guy... (Score 1) 187

It appears you are missing the point I am trying to make. The current technology will not get us very far, I am unfortunately very aware of this. Also the best chance, under our current understanding of the universe is the Alcubierre drive and that would use up something along the lines converting Jupiter's mass to energy.

To get back to my analogy, we two are living in the bronze age. I say traveling the sea will be the future and you say that on our current technology (canoes) we will never be able to cross the ocean.

There is no reason why we can not get a closed loop system to sustain itself. Also there are potential improvements in current rocket technology or rather propellant. Sure we will probably not leave our solar system withing this millennia, but there is no reason why we can not go out into our solar system.

Finally, if you take Project Orion, technology from the 1950s, you get a trip time of 133 years to Alpha Centauri. Although it exceeds a lifetime of a human, it is not completely outside of your reach. It has a few other issues, such the radiation and life support for such a trip, but it is not fully outside of the reach of what we can do.

Comment: Re:Fear of changing code.... (Score 1) 232

by rioki (#47963265) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Have You Experienced Fear Driven Development?

The "harmless" was in relation of the effort and care needed to take case of failures. I know of no food production lines that can not be put in emergency stop. The same is with medical, at most they operate a batch process and in the worst case they need to inject a stopping agent and loose one reactor. The difference with chemical plants or power plants is that there is no "emergency stop". You need to continue operation in the case of a fault and try to slowly get it to a safe state. The alternative is basically "BOOM".

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Working...