Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, that guy (Score 0) 274

by slashdot_commentator (#48218615) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

Avoiding extradition to the US has everything to do with Assange hiding in the Ecuador embassy.

Ok before you go any further, consider that both Swedish AND international law have both long established that in order for Sweden to extradite him to the US, the UK government at this point also has to approve of it.

Not once Assange is in Swedish custody.

Do you even read what you cite???

Lindskog then says he doesn’t know what crimes Assange could be charged with in the USA for leaking US secrets and hypothesises unlawful communication of secret material will be the basis of any charge. Sweden does have such an offence on its books, but “it can be debated” leaking American documents is not a crime under Swedish Law.

That doesn't mean Assange is safe from extradition; it means a single, politically connected Swedish judge can hand over Assange to the US. Good luck fighting the interpretation, or appealing after Assange is flying to Gitmo.

And furthermore, if this is all about freedom of the press, then why the fuck is he seeking assylum from a country that has a terrible track record of it?

Simple. Assange is no exemplar of free speech. He's a political anarchist with delusions of relevance who wanted to kick the US power establishment in the nads, and then get away with it.

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, that guy (Score 5, Insightful) 274

by slashdot_commentator (#48217001) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

1) Your assurances are meaningless.

2) Look at what happened to Kevin Mitnick. Because the American public had such a poor understanding of hacking and the level of threat posed by hacking, people though Mitnick had to be placed behind bars to keep America (corporations) safe. Because the American legal system is much more complex and byzantine than the simplified mythology propagated to its citizens, Kevin had to spend many years in a medium security jail before even going to trial, to optimize his chances of either beating the conviction, or reducing the maximum penalty. What actually happened was that the technology moved so fast, and the public's miniscule understanding of hacking was modified ("Why worry about some jerk that went on a computer joyride, when hackers are stealing American intellectual property and money from the safety of Russia or China"), it eventually became cost effective for the US DOJ to deescalate the witchhunt they were making over Mitnick.

The point being that as long as organizations exist to reveal information the US government prefers to conceal, the security apparatus of the US will treat those organizations as national security threats. This even sort of includes legitimate news organizations like the NY Times, UK Guardian, etc. They are captive to the US government. As long as they operate within the laws defined by the judicial branch, and "play ball", they aren't going to get the Assange treatment. No one like Assange or Snowden can assume they are beyond the reach or interest of the US government.

Comment: Re:Oh yeah, that guy (Score 5, Insightful) 274

by slashdot_commentator (#48216881) Attached to: Assange: Google Is Not What It Seems

No shit shirlock. But why do you think he's hiding there? Avoiding extradition to the US has nothing to do with it.

Avoiding extradition to the US has everything to do with Assange hiding in the Ecuador embassy. Swedish prisons aren't the hell holes in the US or Australia. Even if Assange had an irrational fear of being labelled a sex offender felon, it would not outweigh the price he is paying being holed up in the Ecuador embassy.

Its all about not going to a country that will extradite him to the US over a trumped up security issue. Assange does not have the legal rights an American citizen has. He can be put into Guantanamo, or any other black ops prison, because the US does not respect universal notions of due process. If the US did, Guantanamo couldn't exist.

Comment: Re:Ridiculous (Score 1) 139

The only consideration that Spacex's Dragon has as a compelling advantage is if it can be safely operational with a two year lead over Boeing or Dream Chaser. If that's the case, they should get the contract, tough titties to Sierra Nevada. The damned Russians makes this a compelling priority. Otherwise, give it to Dream Chaser, and tough titties to SpaceX. Boeing, unfortunately, is going to get the next available slot, because it has tons more experience than either competitor, and it has way more politicians in their pocket.

Comment: Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score 1) 937

by slashdot_commentator (#47921547) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

The problem is that you cannot conclusively prove there is no God, just like you cannot conclusively prove there is a God. To assert a state one cannot prove is a belief. I am at a loss at why some atheists insist on the correctness of their belief without being able to prove it; to me, they are merely very annoying evangelists of their non-God.

Comment: Accuse me a being materialistic whore but... (Score 5, Insightful) 136

I'm not having a serious problem with this.

I hate today's commercials so much, I mute them if I can't fast forward them, and am almost forced to only watch DVR'ed content, and tend to avoid watching live TV now. I run adblock. When its a site I go to frequently, I whitelist it, and quickly block it again once I see an ad that does popups, or automatically plays audio/video, or otherwise detracts from my reading.

I would go nuts if a "buy it now" button popped up while reading fiction, but this is a newspaper article. I don't find the button intrusive, because I'm not trying to follow artistic nuance in a newspaper article. It doesn't really take up the screen, and they're placed in front of products to sell, namely "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" and "The Great Gatsby".

It seems to me no more intrusive than a banner ad, and I'm much more annoyed at large rectangular ads that break up article paragraphs. So what am I missing here?

Comment: Re:Poor planning? (Score 1) 127

by slashdot_commentator (#47685645) Attached to: Switching Game Engines Halfway Through Development

The problem is that game design is art, and game engines follow hardware developments. It becomes pretty difficult to figure out what the prevailing technology will be past a year; thus the decision of game engine to adopt becomes a crapshoot as well. It gets even more difficult when a gaming group "knows" the engine they're using will be out of date in two years, and have to cobble their own hacks into the old game engine, to have some feature available in two years. What happens when the "new" engine they've been anticipating doesn't get released "on time", or when it comes, they find out its utterly incompatible with their work in the previous year?

Telling indie companies to force their delivery schedules to one year increments makes it really difficult to put out an eye catching, large scale games. Its relegating them to a financial ghetto niche, even though it may be the "safest" and most predictable way to "ensure" success in a game launch.

Comment: This is old news (Score 1) 115

by slashdot_commentator (#47641015) Attached to: Can We Call Pluto and Charon a 'Binary Planet' Yet?

We've known for at least a decade now that Pluto/Charon's barycenter is outside the mass of Pluto. That was one of many arguments used to delist Pluto from the Solar System planets. Those same "Pluto is a planet" fossils probably would demand Ceres be restored to planetary status, if they lived two hundred years ago.

Comment: Re:so, I'm in the more than 8 yrs ago camp (Score 1) 391

by slashdot_commentator (#47587773) Attached to: How long ago did you last assemble a computer?

I'd say right now there's a performance/pricing window that the box stores haven't matched right now. If you want something cookie cutter, for office work, then yeah, you'd be nuts not to buy from a box store or mail order. But right now, the ones that will optionally include an SSD, serious graphics card, bluray burner, etc. are charging a premium for them.

Its a plus (right now) to select a good motherboard to deal with things like UEFI/GPT, legacy BIOS, chipset issues like memory bandwidth. You don't get to select your mobo from the box stores, and that may limit what you can do, or how well the box will perform even if you buy a base box, and then add premium components. And then there's that ugly, "do I pay a premium for windows 7, or get a windows 8.1 which "I don't like?".

The timid should never build their own PC, unless they want to overcome their timidity and/or desire an excuse to be cognizant of new hardware minutiae. Some people are better off being consumers.

Comment: Re:Please don't take my nerd card (Score 1) 391

by slashdot_commentator (#47580765) Attached to: How long ago did you last assemble a computer?

Technically speaking, computer science was being conducted long before the existence of a computer.

George Boole published his (Boolean) algebra studies in 1854. Logic circuits started as mathematical expressions, not originating with computing machines. Charles Babbage had no computer to work with when he designed the first Analytical Engine, followed by the Difference Engine (which was never built). Turing defined the computer in 1936, before one actually existed. There was quite a body of algorithmic and binomial research before the first (modern) computing machine (Say Attasanoff-Berry in 1939).

Comment: Re:so, I'm in the more than 8 yrs ago camp (Score 1) 391

by slashdot_commentator (#47580547) Attached to: How long ago did you last assemble a computer?

I have happily put together my latest desktop a year ago, returning after many years from abandoning the personal construction route. I figured at the time that it wasn't possible to extract significant price or performance advantages, with the introduction of Intel's Core2 hardware supremacy and box stores relentless commodification of the PC. So my purchased PC machines after that point weres desktops, and then laptops replacing the desktop.

Nowadays, I believe the motivating benefit are the performance advantages in selectively-purchased hardware, like SSDs, multi-terabyte drives, cutting edge graphic cards, and i7/Xeon CPUs. Yeah sure, you can select those features into a pre-ordered box, but it doesn't result in price savings or "optimal" hardware.

As for putting together computers, its "same as it ever was". Its even less ideosyncratic than 8 years ago. But you're still stuck learning the new part connectors, BIOS/UEFI details, hardware trends, etc. Along with the great suggestions like, I'll throw in I recommend it, not so much for the construction articles, but for the database of consumer computer components. It gives you an idea of the prevailing prices of specific parts, and a handy personal page of your parts purchases. You can also then sift through other people's construction sheets and compare your purchases.

Yeah, I envy your plunge into workstations. Its significantly expensive hobby though, much more so than gaming machines.

Comment: Re:Don't tell HURD (Score -1, Flamebait) 82

by slashdot_commentator (#47563633) Attached to: seL4 Verified Microkernel Now Open Source

seL4 is probably a subset of MACH. It wouldn't be an insurmountable problem to port HURD to run on top of seL4. What might be exceptionally difficult would be to rewrite HURD to take advantage of seL4's design, to produce a more "correct" version of a microkernel based OS.

IIRC, the HURD effort to replace MACH with L4 had nothing to do with difficulty salvaging HURD code to run on top of L4. It had to do with known security flaws with inter process communications in MACH and the original L4 implementation. There was a grad student looking to replace MACH with a prototype secure variant of L4 called coyotos, which was eventually abandoned.

Fuck HURD. HURD was a failure. HURD was a vanity project Richard Stallman wanted implemented to undercut the popularity of the fledgling linux OS. He abandoned his cheerleading effort for it over a decade ago. (I doubt Stallman even contributed code to the original HURD implementation.) Since then, its been whored out to every grad student looking to use it as a platform for their thesis. The whole academic drive towards microkernel OS is obsolete research, like using PROLOG to implement AI systems. Microkernels have been supplanted by hypervisors and secure ipc implementations. Really, if HURD worked, what would it be doing that would make it uniquely valuable when compared to all current operating systems?

Personally, I wish I could avert my eyes from this collision between two behemoth machines trapped in an event horizon.

Cobol programmers are down in the dumps.