Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:no hope for political solution (Score 1) 133

by sumdumass (#48446237) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

The problem is the people in general. They do not want to be inconvenienced, burdened, overly taxed, or told they have to go without something they are already taking for granted while wealthy and rich people gets to still enjoy it. It is a step backwards in society from any rational sense of reality.

This is why the governments who are concerned should not be trying to force more expensive tech onto people, they should not be trying to tax them in hopes that someone will get fed up and create a better alternative before replacing the government and ignoring their concerns. The governments, the UN, all those concerned, should be investing in direct research to make cleaner alternatives and perhaps even cleaner fossil energy sources that are both cost competitive and safe which could be implemented by any country at little to no royalty costs. If instead of Kyoto requiring countries to tax energy use in excess of so much emissions or penalizing some countries while ignoring others (Seriously, out of 157 or so countries, only 37 had limits on carbon emissions and of those 2 had limits they would reach in the future) and instead put as much effort and attention into researching and developing energy sources that would effectively meet those goals while being cost competitive, we would likely not be talking about this right now. We would likely either realize there isn't good alternatives or be instituting them as they are more productive and profitable.

But it would seem that everything done is for some other agenda. You can see those agendas if you look around enough.

Comment: Re:Microsoft Windows only (Score 1) 129

by sumdumass (#48445903) Attached to: Highly Advanced Backdoor Trojan Cased High-Profile Targets For Years

You are correct, poorly trained admins will net poorly secured systems with the same or similar horrible mistakes.

However, you are glossing over what was actually said in order to make those statements as if it was some overriding truth. The problem is that windows exposes to much of the underlying systems to programs running so exploits in power point or outlook can infect the entire machine kernel and spread to the servers via internal network support infrastructure (domain controller functions). Now much has been done in more recent versions to limit this but it still remains true for the most part.

Part of this is because programmers write bad code to sell cheap software to people who are familiar with the ease of use of windows. In fact, this is likely why it is the most common OS out there- because it is so easy to write software and do things in that people see it as just working. Its that layer of ease which makes it easy to be exploited. Almost every anti-virus company out there worth a salt, will have complex (and sometimes simple) methods of virus removal you can look up and follow for when a virus gets past their products. It is simply impossible to completely secure windows or linux and still have a usable machine but it is easier to limit vulnerabilities on a linux or Mac system currently. This could change if they get more popular or do something stupid in the future or if malware writers decide to focus more and more on these smaller platforms. This is also why Adobe and Java was such a target for the longest of times. Cross platform and complete access.

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 430

by sumdumass (#48445663) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

I'm not sure a 16 year old driver is the best driver out there and I think that was his point. They can get the job done, but have accidents and close calls because they are inexperienced. In a lot of areas, a 16 year old driver is also limited in how many people can be in the vehicle with them and when they can drive (night verses day and so on).

Comment: Re:In a Self-Driving Future--- (Score 1) 430

by sumdumass (#48445623) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

This is so true. I do a lot of driving and do not know how many times I have come across road crews that closed a lane down for something. Sometimes there is another lane in the same direction and it is just a matter of merging but sometimes you have to go into oncoming traffic lanes while they stop and meter the flow. Also, we still hear reports of people driving into lakes or on to parks and pedestrian paths because their GPS said to turn here or had to recalculate.

And I also agree with the ABS. I was unfortunate enough to have one of those early cars and I had to pull the fuse to the ABS unit if it was slick at all out. I live in a northern area which means quite a bit of winter snow and ice as well as grit and sand at intersections to remedy the snow and ice. When you would brake, if one tire slipped or the sensors were dirty or something and it just thought it slipped just a little, it would increase your stopping distance by about 15-30 foot. Imagine your dismay when approaching an intersection and the car's computer causes you to stop on the other side of it after appearing to being able to stop before the intersection. And good luck parking, it could actually allow you to roll past your space and into some obstacle like another parked car or a cement parking block or wall or iron pipes filled with concrete to stop people from driving further or something because it would release your brakes to regain traction even at 3mph if it thought one tire was slipping.

The ABS systems are much better now. But at one time, you were better off without it at all if you knew how to drive in slick conditions. The early versions basically pumped your brakes for you, the newer versions can do it per wheel and just enough to remedy the slipping on the affected wheel(s).

Comment: Re:Police legal authority (Score 1) 157

by sumdumass (#48442785) Attached to: Judge Unseals 500+ Stingray Records

I agree with one exception....

The police should have less rights than an ordinary citizen when acting in their official capacity. Our rights guaranteed in the constitution are protections from government intrusions and the police are government plain and clear. The people however have more leeway in some matters that government is expressly prohibited in or limited unless certain hoops are cleared first.

Comment: Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 180

"critical thinking skills", I do not think that means what you think it means. You have brought it up several times now seemingly to indicate you do not agree with something that someone has said or done. That would be completely wrong. You further seem to suggest that a lack of critical thinking skills would lead someone to actually applying them "internalize Republican nonsense" as if being dismissive without using your critical thinking skills was in and of itself critical thinking skills.

That may float in your little circle but everyone else is seeing the failure in logic you seem to be suffering.

Comment: Re:Owning stock (Score 1) 201

by sumdumass (#48434019) Attached to: Harvard Students Move Fossil Fuel Stock Fight To Court

No investors does not mean no value. The stock has to be either sokd to someone else or repurchased by the company. It doesn't go on to a shelf with no owner until someone decides to purchase it like a second hand store item or something.

Selling and driving stock prices down does little harm to an established company. They still have assets and a revenue stream.

Comment: Re: wont last (Score 1) 279

Its because they have to take econ 101 as part of their degree but see it as one of those courses they just need to get out of the way so they do not do much more than what is neccesary to pass it

You see the same things when people take psych 101 also. It gives just enough info to understand what is being presented but is dangerous to assume you know it all

Comment: Re: wont last (Score 1) 279

I don't think you understand what you are taljing about. Fraud is not inherent to capitalism. Capitalism requires informed parties to be involved which negates fraud. Fraud can only happen when one or more parties either are not informed, purposely misinformed, or there is an out an outright refusal/ability to deliver the product. The later is taking advantage of it and regullation of it isnot regulation of capitalism unless it manipulates the transaction in some way to prevent fraud. This is BTW no different than any other system

Pure capitalism exists in real transactions but not as a pure system in the real world.

Comment: Re:FISMA Security huh (Score 1) 54

by sumdumass (#48402397) Attached to: State Department Joins NOAA, USPS In Club of Hacked Federal Agencies

Its largely a coya situation. Whether you are a complete imbecile or the grand daddy of all neck beards who shared part of creating computers, the cert is the only way a mid level manager is going to be able to pass the blame on you not doing it corectly rather than himself for hiring you if something goes wrong. It likely allows them to escape punitive damages if sued over it too- of course qe hired a qualified person, ignore the fact he's the owners neighbor's kid, he has all these certs.

Comment: Re: Record an Apology (Score 1) 147

by sumdumass (#48399423) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Dealing With VoIP Fraud/Phishing Scams?

It might be wise to release a press statement warning of the scam in your points 1 and 2 and state that they are "cooperating" with regulators and authorities to catch the scammers.

I put cooperate in quotes because trechnically it is true as long as it is reported to them whether they act or not.

But it seems that one of the ways this works is the legitimate number being used to trick people. Well, if the news runs a story about it, that element goes away.

Comment: Re: Split Comcast in two (Score 1) 135

by sumdumass (#48399205) Attached to: Can the US Actually Cultivate Local Competition in Broadband?

You mean birther types. There are plenty or Tea Party types who do not challenge his birth- which is a premise originating from democrats.

This difference is significant unless your goal is to make shit up that you know little about and hope it sticks. Perhaps you are just the ignorant target of someone like that.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?