Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Christmas is coming early this year (Score 1) 683

by orgelspieler (#47408433) Attached to: TSA Prohibits Taking Discharged Electronic Devices Onto Planes

It is absolutely insanity. If the goal is to make it very unlikely, we were already there before naked scanners and confiscating water bottles. Using your own example of ever-shrinking Venn diagram intersections: The circle containing "people who just forgot to charge their phone" is probably 4 or 5 orders of magnitude bigger than any of the other circles you just told us to draw. Also the odds of the people building a bomb into an iPhone not being able to also make the phone look and act like an iPhone for some short amount of time is tiny.

Further, the act of blowing up the iBomb in the security line would be more dangerous and costly than actually blowing it up on a plane. Can you imagine? You'd get to shut down an entire airport and kill the hundred people in line. Back to my point, the continuing addition of rules at the checkpoints is insane. To think otherwise is willful ignorance.

Comment: Re:Repeat after me... (Score 1) 534

Actually, Title III of the ADA pretty much says they must let us bring in food. Space Center Houston is a "public accommodation." An allergy is "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities" (eating). They have to make reasonable accommodations to their policies. Since they do not offer any dairy free menu items in their food court, a reasonable accommodation would be to allow us to bring in a sandwich. The alternative is that they lose ALL the money I would spend in their food court.

Shit... now that I look more closely at this, I really should sue the Honolulu airport. When we went through there, they had all these signs saying that they don't serve people with food allergies. WTF? Of course, since it's an airport, you're kind stuck there without a lot of options. Anybody know any good civil rights lawyers?

Can you imagine if they had a sign that said "Sorry, no retards allowed."

Comment: Video Boo Hiss (Score 1) 42

At first I was surprised to see this article didn't have at least 300 comments. Look at the recent SCOTUS article. But now I see why. I can't believe they chose to present answers from Lessig in this format. How absurd. I was just telling my son how stupid it was that he wades through 7 minutes of Minecraft Youtube videos when the same info can be garnered in 10 seconds on the wiki. I'm appalled that they don't at least have a transcription posted here. Web accessibility is one of those touchstone topics for Mr. Lessig, so I am flabbergasted that they would have chosen him for a video-sans-transcript response.

Lawrence Lessig Answers Your Questions About His Mayday PAC, Part 2 (Video) 42

Posted by Roblimo
from the an-important-work-that-only-a-few-people-will-ever-care-about dept.
The original Mayday PAC goal was to raise $1 million. Now Larry is working on a second -- and more ambitious -- goal: To raise $5 million by July 4. We called for your questions on June 23, and you sent a bunch of them. This time, instead of using email, we used Google Hangout to ask via video, with an attached transcript for those who can't or won't watch the video. In today's video, Larry tells us that some of the impetus for Mayday PAC came from the late Aaron Swartz, and goes deeper into the group's goals and hopes than he did in yesterday's video. (Alternate Video Link)

Comment: Re:Commercial Services (Score 1) 228

by vandon (#47362835) Attached to: The New 501(c)(3) and the Future of Open Source In the US

No, your reasoning is NOT sound....Both Goodwill and Salvation Army take donations both monitary and material and sell the material items...for money.

How is having a paid support structure where the money goes back into the charity for more charitable uses any different than both of those?

Comment: Re:Repeat after me... (Score 5, Interesting) 534

Fuck security guards.

We were going to go to NASA Space Center, and they have a "security checkpoint" before you enter. You know what they're looking for? Food! I couldn't bring in a sandwich so my son with food allergies (yes the real, anaphylaxis kind) could eat lunch with us. All so they could make an extra buck at the snack counter. I guess they got enough complaints, because they allow bottled water now. I raised a big enough stink about it that they finally let me in, but what the fuck? If it's a goddam security check, look for guns and knives and forget the rest. If a little ham is going to cause the Mars exhibit to implode, why don't they have another checkpoint as you leave the food court?!

Anyway, I would have left, but my wife had already bought the tickets and was pissed at me for raising such a fuss. I was offended that she was not outraged. I mean this is complete bullshit, and she wants to raise our kids to just roll over and take it. More people need to get pissed at these "security" checks. I see it happening at more and more venues: football games, art museums, etc... At least the metal detectors in the courthouse came as a response to actual shootings. But come on, who is going to bother with a terrorist attack on the Duct Tape Museum of Greater Bumfuck? At some point the security measures cost more than what you're actually preventing.

Comment: Bad actors (Score 1) 248

I'll probably get modded down for this, but it looks like this is a case of a judge stretching the law as far as possible to try to enforce an order against some really crappy people. If the plaintiff is correct (AFAIK they are), then the defendants absolutely deserve to get struck from Google's search results. Hell, if they're really bait-and-switching customers, you'd think Google would be pleased as punch to give these guys the finger.

Look, it's nice to talk in absolute terms about freedom of speech, sovereignty, judicial activism, or what have you. But this is part of an ongoing trial, and the judge is trying to do what's fair while the underlying trade secret case plays through. I wouldn't want to be in her position. If the plaintiff goes under because all the Google results for their equipment point to these other asshats, then the judge will be blamed for not doing enough.

If one of my engineers started up a company in Canada using my technology, I would love for a judge to be able to enjoin Google to remove their search results. This is a feature, not a bug.

Comment: New Permissions (Score 4, Interesting) 249

by vandon (#47215323) Attached to: New Permission System Could Make Android Much Less Secure

Just finished updating a few apps on my phone.
Adobe Air has a new permission group it requests. However, on the 'here's the permissions Air is requesting' pop-up after you hit the update button, they no longer mark the new permissions with "NEW". So now you have to cancel out of the update and go check each and every app you're going to update to see what the new permissions it's requesting.
Totally stupid move by Google to not even mark the new permissions with 'NEW'

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN