Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Spotty 3G on T-Mobile? (Score 5, Funny) 146

by skirtsteak_asshat (#30755182) Attached to: Nexus One Owners Report Spotty 3G Signals On T-Mobile
Then the other guy came out with a reliable, fast network. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called 3G. That's three G's and a touch pad. For touching. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four G's. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our hands, selling three G's and a touchpad. Touching or no, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to five G's. Sure, we could go to four G's next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a bigger screen and call it the 3G Turbo. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why! Stop. I just had a stroke of genius. Are you ready? Open your wallets, baby birds, cause Mama's about to drop you one sweet, fat nightcrawler: $40 Data plans. You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the cell phone game. We make the rules. What part of this don't you understand? If two G's is good, and three G's is better, obviously five G's would make us the best fucking network that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the network game by clinging to the two-G industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five G's is the biggest chance of all. Here's the report from Engineering. Someone put it in the bathroom: I want to wipe my ass with it. They don't tell me what to invent—I tell them. And I'm telling them to stick two more G's in there. I don't care how. Make the clients so thin they're invisible. Put some on the handle. I don't care if they have to cram the fifth G in perpendicular to the other four, just do it! You're taking the "fast" part of "fast network" too literally, grandma. Cut the strings and soar. Let's hit it. Let's roll. This is our chance to make network history. Let's dream big. All you have to do is say that five G's can happen, and it will happen. If you aren't on board, then fuck you. And if you're on the board, then fuck you and your father. People said we couldn't go to three. It'll cost a fortune to manufacture, they said. Well, we did it. Now some egghead in a lab is screaming "Five's crazy?" Well, perhaps he'd be more comfortable in the labs at Norelco, working on fucking electrics. Rotary phones, my white ass! Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we should just ride in Bic's wake and make pens. Ha! Not on your fucking life! The day I shadow a penny-ante outfit like Bic is the day I leave the phone game for good, and that won't happen until the day I die! The market? Listen, we make the market. All we have to do is put her out there with a little jingle. It's as easy as, "Hey, browsing with anything less than five G's is like scraping your beard off with a dull hatchet." Or "You'll be so well-connected, I could snort lines off of your chin." Try "Your wallet is going to be so friggin' soft, someone's gonna walk up and tie a goddamn Cub Scout kerchief under it." I know what you're thinking now: What'll people say? Mew mew mew. Oh, no, what will people say?! Grow the fuck up. When you're on top, people talk. That's the price you pay for being on top. Which AT&T is, always has been, and forever shall be, Amen, sweet Jesus in heaven.

Comment: Re:Just wait till they ban all encryption. (Score 1) 176

by skirtsteak_asshat (#30177686) Attached to: In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances
Imagine now that they have your ID (IP, MAC, user_profile) being charted over time, showing which types of traffic you are commonly sending, establishing baselines. It should be pretty easy to spot the short encrypted sessions in your months of traffic, and determine if it's low-lying fruit. If so, hmm, what have we here? Profile it. I don't think most people, even crypto-savvy people, are aware enough of their profile and how easily and transparently they can be monitored, given the impetus.

Comment: Re:Just wait till they ban all encryption. (Score 1) 176

by skirtsteak_asshat (#30044346) Attached to: In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances
Are you suggesting the full vested interest of our military industrial complex cannot manage to break commonly used encryption schemes, or that they just can't do it quickly and easily?
I'd argue both are probably outdated notions. The computing power they have available is pretty damn amazing. If these encryption schema were breakable, why would they announce it?

Comment: Re:The often forgot non-privacy risk (Score 2, Insightful) 176

by skirtsteak_asshat (#30044242) Attached to: In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances
Well, uh, as I understand it, the govt's have pretty substantial physical access at the telcos and ISP hubs. Rooms, in fact. It seems like it would take a big budget, yet be otherwise feasible for them to record _everything_ and dump it off. Later, using grid power and secret NSA hax, they can pick apart your encryption retroactively to get the details they need. If you were REALLY bothering them, they could then use that data to backdoor your box and read your DRIVE encryption. I'm sure they could probably have you on the list in under an hour. I mean, they have the budget, the mandate, the capability. Just because they say they're scrapping a program... doesn't mean it's not a redundant capability. Likely contracted it out. Did you think the military / NSA / CIA / XXX were all just a bunch of keystone cops, waiting for authorization to wiretap? It's just a matter of priority and focus. They're dealing with a pretty large data set, so you've got to be worth their while. I guess that's the comforting thought here... if you're not a truly bad guy, they are not likely to waste resources on you.

Comment: Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT.. (Score 2, Insightful) 239

Net neutrality _means_ internet access to the whole internet, unfiltered, uncensored, ungoverned, including all ports, protocols, and pr0n therein. Amen. We pay the local connection fee to the ISP. The content handling is mostly paid for by advertising and click-thru-purchases, as I understand it. Shouldn't they be mandated to explain EXACTLY how they are throttling the service we are paying for, instead of obfuscating that information? What, exactly, is the difference between throttling something to the edge of usability and flat-out denying access? Please, tell me. Money trickles down, or companies go out of business. That's how it works currently, and you can see LOTS of revenue being made as-is. The internet is not going bankrupt under the current management. Mind you, 18 Republicans support deregulation. REPUBLICANS! When you begin to charge a fee for any larger segment of the internet, you are sliding headlong down the slippery slope towards information control. When you begin to throttle the connection of those deemed 'undesirable' where EXACTLY do you, sir, draw the line of desirability? Aha. Are the corporations and lobbyist groups the guarantors of online rights and privileges? Or is the internet a greater entity, a medium, which must be protected as speech is? We are deciding these tenets of our future society now. I would prefer a world of equals to a world of powerful tyrants, but perhaps you'll sell me something shiny instead. These corporate lobbyist groups and their Republican handlers don't have a great track record when it comes to honesty or altruism. "you and I are not much different than they are" - MindlessAutomata indeed! You are an apologist for the corporate excesses that have bankrupted our world economy. I'm not damning ALL corporations, I'm damning the IDEA that corporate rights are synonymous with human dignities and that they are granted the rights in our constitution. They are not living beings. They are not citizens. They are profit motivated collections of groupthink consumerist elites hell bent on world domination. Spin it as you like. A corporation cannot vote, cannot be drafted, cannot own a firearm or be shot dead by one. They do not require, and should not be granted, such inalienable rights as we are. Our only hope is in rallying behind organizations like the EFF to fight for our future rights online and the very shape of our future society. They are our champions. Not congress. NOT Comcast! They are willing conspirators of control, if for different motives. They cannot be trusted to act benevolently, now or in the future. As for the mindless automata, willing to trade freedom for convenience, may your simple dreams be the nightmares of those who went before. Repeat history as you will.

Comment: "new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT..." (Score 5, Insightful) 239

No, new regulations could hinder THEIR DEVELOPMENT of price per byte structure which they've been salivating about for a LONG TIME. Greedy pricks. Green-wash as you are able, we will see through it and hold you accountable.

Comment: Re:In other news... (Score 1) 351

by skirtsteak_asshat (#29664357) Attached to: Null-Prefix SSL Certificate For PayPal Released
No no no, it's flying cars, THEN Linux desktop. Just read Balmers blog, it answers all these questions and more. This is precisely why I deleted all my certificates, and now manually verify each site line by line in a sandboxed 16bit hex. Did you know that Paypal is actually run by a guy named Moxie Marlinspike? This is a pretty elaborate prank, obviously.

Comment: Re:Percentage? (Score 2, Interesting) 333

by skirtsteak_asshat (#29661603) Attached to: Google Finds DRAM Errors More Common Than Believed
Well, consider that they had a board CUSTOM MADE for them, which means custom BIOS fitments, custom feature implementations, custom BUGS Then add the reality that is DRAM - an imperfect 'art' form of data storage and retrieval. No two chips are EXACTLY the same... though very close. Manufacturing defects may not manifest themselves under normal conditions, and require heating/cooling cycles or fluctuating voltages to break down. Running ECC performs a basic parity check, nothing more, and it's still possible to pass bad bits with ECC enabled, just much less likely. The idea is that you can't really test subcomponents individually and have them check out, and then assemble a system and expect it to just 'work'. Some ram is pretty damn finicky. Standards are anything but.

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...