Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:very understandable (Score 2, Insightful) 784

by Le Marteau (#45553961) Attached to: Disabled Woman Denied Entrance To US Due To Private Medical Records

It is only through hindsight that we can say that a desire to ferret out communist subversives was "irrational". At this time during the cold war, considering that there actually WERE subversives and attempts to subvert the USA's government, a desire and hunting for such subversives was a very understandable and reasonable concern. Protecting itself and it's integrity is a proper role for government and there were valid concerns.

What made McCarthyism bad not the hunt for subversives per se, it was tossing out the constitution in the hunt for subversives.

Comment: Ancient news (Score 2) 190

by Salamander (#45495067) Attached to: Elevation Plays a Role In Memory Error Rates

About five years ago, I was involved in the installation of a thousand-node cluster in Boulder. We knew *before we went in* that we needed to change our EDAC (memory error correction) code to account for the higher rate of bit-flips due to the altitude. Some of the people we were working with had been there when those same problems nearly caused a months-long delay in a larger installation at NCAR nearby. We ended up running into a more subtle problem involving lower air density, heat and voltage, but *this* problem was incredibly old news even then.

Comment: Re:Here comes the flood.... (Score 1) 183

by Le Marteau (#45493111) Attached to: FCC To Consider Cellphone Use On Planes

"Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them,"

Yes, it is different. On a phone conversation, you can only hear one side of the conversation. Our minds tend to try to fill in the blanks and attempt to make sense of the conversation, which does not occur when you can hear both sides of a conversation.

So yes, phone conversations ARE more annoying than "in person" conversations.

Comment: Re:Protip (Score 1) 228

by Le Marteau (#45231475) Attached to: The Boss Is Remotely Monitoring Blue-Collar Workers

> If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

They can fire you simply because they don't like you. That's all the reason required.

If they don't like you because you are a woman, or are black, that's a different matter. But simple, non-prejudiced dislike is enough reason to fire someone.

Comment: There you have it, folks... (Score 5, Insightful) 411

by Le Marteau (#45050263) Attached to: US Intelligence Chief Defends Attempts To Break Tor

Our government explicitly says, privacy is a threat to our safety, and it is the duty of our government to prevent privacy from being possible at all costs.

Go ahead, people. Keep voting for the republicans, because at least they are not democrats. Oh, I mean, keep voting for democrats, because at least they are not republicans. NOTHING is going to change that way. They'll keep boning us up the ass with this "oh noooo... can't have privacy.... TARE! Fnord! War on TARE!!!!"

Actually y'know what? Fuck y'all. YOU are responsible for this. Not me. I have not voted for either major party in DECADES. YOU... YOU are responsible for allowing this to happen. YOU have gotten the government you deserve, you half-wits. Sadly, I am the one who has to suffer for you turds voting for the jackasses (Bush, Obama, whatever) who allow and enable shit like this.

Comment: I stopped reading after the first sentence (Score 3, Insightful) 408

First sentence says "Saudi Cleric" claims something is so. Why would anyone with any sense read any further? What are you guys, masochists? Do you intentionally look for things to irritate you? Surely you were aware than nothing beneficial or insightful can follow in anything beginning with "Saudi Cleric claims..."

Stop intentionally finding things to piss yourself off. You'll live a healthier, and probably longer, life.

Comment: Re:They got off easy (Score 1) 320

by Le Marteau (#44987503) Attached to: Two Years In Prison For Using Infrared Contact Lenses To Cheat At Poker

Laws specifically addressing cheating are absolutely required. By your example, simple breaches of the rules would lead to jail.

For example, the rules of craps say that you pick up and throw the dice with one hand. Touching the dice with both hands at the same time is forbidden. Doing so is against the rules.

So this simple breach of the rules... according to you, would lead to jail.

Comment: Re:The house ALWAYS wins. (Score 2) 320

by Le Marteau (#44984513) Attached to: Two Years In Prison For Using Infrared Contact Lenses To Cheat At Poker

" if you are winning in a game of chance with the odds firmly tilted"

If you play basic strategy Blackjack (which is easy, because almost all casinos allow you to use a basic strategy card at the table... printed matter the size of a credit card to use as reference to how to play the hands) the house advantage is about 0.44%. Shooting craps and betting the pass line with odds yields about a 0.8% house advantage. I hardly call that "firmly tilted"

In such games it is possible to win for quite some time... often, up to days of elapsed play... before the house advantage eventually causes you to become a net loser.

Compare this to the typical 50% advantage states typically have in lottery games.

Comment: Re:jerk (Score 4, Insightful) 1440

by Le Marteau (#44933669) Attached to: Georgia Cop Issues 800 Tickets To Drivers Texting At Red Lights

It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.

One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"

The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.

Comment: Re:OK, it's moderately amusing, but... (Score 1) 535

by Le Marteau (#44705745) Attached to: Pastafarian Wins Battle To Wear Colander In License Photo

do people really still think of religions in 2013 as about sky-fairies rather than philosophies or systems of ethics?

Obama does. Here he is... direct quote... talking about his faith in the Zombie Jesus:

"I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life." - Barack Hussein Obama

Comment: Apples and oranges (Score 1) 25

by Le Marteau (#44638671) Attached to: Can my narrative experts opine?

The difference between the Zimmerman case and this case is, Zimmerman stood a chance of (and did) being exonerated, and was being praised.

The murderers in the Aussie case stand no chance of walking for quite some time. And no one except objective imbeciles is praising the killers here.

Tisk-tisking the race-baiters and saying they are hypocrites is appropriate in many occasions. This is not one of them.

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)