Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Illegal to use proxy services [Re: So-to-speak (Score 1) 400

by vux984 (#47921223) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

You can interpret it that way. That's not the only way to interpret it.

You took a structure like:

"You aren't allowed to prepare, eat, or serve sticky or messy foods while sitting in the car. Some examples of prohibited foods include donuts, chocolate fondue, ."

And then claimed that it said you aren't allowed to ever eat donuts.

Its plainly wrong.

Comment: Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score 2) 245

by vux984 (#47919703) Attached to: The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming

Imagine if you would soccer, you had a team who played the games that were scheduled and showed up to practice.
Then you, show up once and awhile to practice, and play the odd game.

Except in reality for every player that plays regularly and shows up to practice daily, there are 10 players that drop in once in a while. Lets say the local league has 110 players in it. 10 guys that are obsessive about showing up, and 100 that drop in once a week or so to a game or practice.

Which pool is the "average" player? Is it the 100? or the 10? I'd say common sense is going to put the average a lot nearer the mean ability of the 100 than of the 10.

At any given match, 15 people will show up from the regular once a week pool. But at least 9 of the 10 obsessives will be there. And those 9 players will dominate the match.

Your argument speculates that 'hard core players' somehow outnumber 'casuals', and that the hard-core therefore ARE the average, and that's incorrect. The casuals out number the hard core players 10 to 1. But it doesn't matter, the hardcores are still there dominating every match.

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 576

by vux984 (#47918957) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Whether gun owners are responsible or not (my observation is that most are, and there's a few that scare me) is irrelevant to the "smart gun" debate.

Of the collection of gun owners that are not responsible one of the ways that irresponsibility manifests is leaving loaded guns lying around the house where kids find them and play with them. Quite a few kids are injured and killed this way.

"smart guns" could help with that group, and prevent those injuries and deaths, amongst other scenarios.

Comment: Re:Illegal to use proxy services [Re: So-to-speak (Score 1) 400

by vux984 (#47914921) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

But the clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run


The clear straightforward text is: proxies are listed on the list of things you are specifically not allowed to use or run on your premises for the use of people off your premises

You could do the lawyer thing and claim to interpret it the way you say.

  That's not a lawyer thing, that's a basic reading comprehension thing.

I parsed the sentence and I showed you how I parsed it, so that if you disagreed with me you could point to the exact point you disagree with. If you feel there was an error in the parse, point at it.

Comment: Re:Illegal to use proxy services [Re: So-to-speak (Score 1) 400

by vux984 (#47913141) Attached to: Comcast Allegedly Asking Customers to Stop Using Tor

The straightforward reading, however, is that it is forbidden to use proxy services. You're also not allowed to run them, but that's specified separately.

No that's not a straightforward reading at all.

Lets drop the 'or run' to simplify it slightly and read that:

use dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network.

now lets apply some plain structure:


use [ [dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers] from [the premises]] that[ [provide network content or any other services] to [anyone outside of your premises local area network]]

now lets simplify a bit more:


use [ [servers] from [the premises]] that[[provide services] to [anyone outside of your premises]]

Clearly that reads one of two ways, either you are prohibited from providing services to others from your premises, or you are prohibited from using services from your premises that are reachable from outside your premise.

The first reading makes perfect sense.

The 2nd reading prevents you from accessing anything on the internet, unless it only reachable by you, which is ridiculous.

Clearly the straightforward reading is that the prohibition is on 'using' or 'provisioning' something on-premises that provides services to others.

Using a proxy service hosted off premises is not covered by that at all.

Further, any interpretation which does read as prohibiting the use of external proxy services would also prohibit the 'use' of external email servers, and web hosts, which is plainly ridiculous.

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 576

by vux984 (#47904867) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

Note that this new "smart" gun won't save you from doing this.

The point of the penis shooting statistics is to pointedly refute that claim that gun owners are can be relied upon to be responsible.

Arguing that this particular tech doesn't stop guns owners from being irresponsible in one particular way doesn't refute the point.

Thus the point stands. "Gun owners" as a group cannot be assumed to be responsible. Therefore regulations to prevent the drooling mouthbreathers from being unduly dangerous to the public is reasonable.

Does that mean they should take away YOUR guns? Probably not, but if you accidently shot your self in the penis, maybe, just maybe you can't be trusted with a firearm. Maybe, just maybe, as a society we should prevent people like that from having guns. We require some minimal proof of competency before letting you drive in public, perhaps, just perhaps you shouldn't have a gun until you can at least demonstrate that you know to point it away from yourself when, especially when your finger is on the trigger.

Comment: Re:One Sure Way (Score 1) 275

by vux984 (#47904787) Attached to: California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews

Did you actually read the article you linked to? Take a look at the photo.. you can see the price tags... $10 to $25 for the rip off chargers, putting them smack in the price range for legitimate chargers. (BestBuy house brands Dynex and Insignia for example are exactly the same price range and has all the UL / CE certifications etc.)

Comment: Re:Not even close (Score 1) 193

by vux984 (#47885923) Attached to: The Documents From Google's First DMV Test In Nevada

Though with a bit of luck, that could actually lead to people not driving in conditions where they would be much better off staying put

And if luck goes against us, the inclement weather lands mid-day, and everyone has to get home from work, or is halfway home from work when the car throws up its hands, pulls over, and gives up.

Me, personally, I can generally avoid driving on snow days, but a lot of people simply don't have that luxury. Walmart and McDonalds and the rest of the service and retail industry don't close at the first sign of snow and they tend to be less than generous when staff claim difficulty getting to work.

Comment: Re:I dont know why this is a bad thing (Score 1) 193

by vux984 (#47885373) Attached to: The Documents From Google's First DMV Test In Nevada

All of these tests and such aren't being done so they can release an autonomous car tomorrow, its an ongoing process and will take time.

That's understood.

IEEE Spectrum contributor Mark Harris obtained a copy of the DMV test Google's autonomous car passed in Nevada in 2012

It "passed"?

Would your or I pass a drivers test if we couldn't handle weather, road construction, roundabouts, "specific turns", and had our mom in the back seat reaching over to take the controls whenever we weren't sure of ourselves? Of course not.

When it passes a drivers test that'll be a big day. But that test in 2012 was not that day. There's much to celebrate, and as you said its an ongoing research project. But it didn't pass a Nevada drivers test. So why say it did?

It did very well, impressively well, for an autonomous vehicle even... but its still well short of being issued a drivers license, which is what an actual pass of an actual test would imply.

its a research project and the media seems to have an agenda to make autonomous cars into the boogeyman

Because the hype machine says it passed a drivers test, leading to the inference that its ready to be let loose on the streets, when CLEARLY they are no where near ready in actuality.

Comment: Re:#1 Thank You, #2 Lego Mindstorm (Score 1) 115

by vux984 (#47884597) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Robotics or Electronic Kits For Wounded Veterans?

ISIS is a splintercell that has been cut off of support from Al Queda. Al Qaeda has publicly stated this. It was born of members that were based out of Syria, Iran and Iraq

All true.

. I believe that if Saddam was still in power, that they would most likely be worse then they are now, because they Saddam regime would have politically aligned themselves with their cause,

Assuming it would have existed as a significant entity in the first place. Which it wouldn't have. It would have just been some minor radical splinter with low membership, and no real influence.

You used the phrase "born" when you described it. And that is an apt metaphor -- WE are one of its parents. We planted the seeds that enabled it to grow.

You cannot tell me that you believe that a random sheep farmer with no internet access has the capability of teaching himself how to build a IED or Suicide Vest.

Of course not. If we hadn't been there he'd still be farming sheep. And his sons would be learning to farm sheep instead of joining groups like ISIS.

The majority of civilian casualties happened outside of the primary conflict,

And they wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gone there. You can bleat they were not our "fault" all you like, and I agree we generally didn't go around killing civilians on purpose or anything like that. But the reality remains that our presence there provoked that response.

The infrastructure we destroyed meant they couldn't get their kids to the hospital when they were sick, or led to the water being undrinkable or the food spoiling leading to the spread of disease which culled the older and weaker. And the survivors? What do they do? The economy is screwed, they've lost loved ones... the government is a shambles, the police collapsed, local power groups are de facto in charge, they are angry and they need to blame someone. They are ripe for recruitment and radicalization. To strike back at another religious faction and America and anyone else that is proximate that isn't "them".

Often times our actions aren't to just protect the interests and Freedoms of just ourselves, but to help liberate the innocent from a tyrant as well

It doesn't matter how good our intentions wee, we manufacture groups like ISIS, and Al Qaeda with our so-called 'world police' activity.

Comment: Not even close (Score 0) 193

by vux984 (#47884201) Attached to: The Documents From Google's First DMV Test In Nevada

âoeWe canâ(TM)t fail an applicant for not being able to navigate a traffic circle if they say that there [sic] vehicle canâ(TM)t yet do it.â

They had no trouble failing me for not being able to navigate certain traffic situations correctly on my first drivers test. Had I said, well "I can't do that yet" that would not have resulted in a pass.

So the car failed. Let it fail. Its no big deal that it failed. Constructing an illegitmate pass for headlines just stirs pointless controversy.

This test shows that there's lots of good progress, but that's it.

As for driverless cars actually being ready ? No where near close.

Requiring the driver to be ready to jump in while in action is absurd to the point of not even considering it.

Stopping the car, and handing the controls over is still going to lead to tons of problems. Cars stopping at railway crossings and round abouts and then just sitting there jamming traffic... because the driver fell asleep 30 minutes ago. (And why SHOULDN'T the driver fall asleep -- he's tired, bored, and not doing anything... what do you expect will happen)

Until self driving cars reach the long term goal of being responsible for driving in basically anything a human is currently expected to cope with they can't rise to being more than a novelty, or some limited highway auto-pilot cruise control system.

Because even if it CAN usually handle the daily commute, if it can't handle it ALL THE TIME its a bad idea.

Today when there's snow in a city that doesn't get snow that often its a mess. And that's with mostly drivers who drive every day, know the route they are going like the back of their hand, know where the tricky / problematic spots are etc, and know know how their cars handle at least in normal conditions. And its a mess.

Now, lets substitute that with a city full of drivers who only drive 3 - 4 times a year, are completely out of practice, have no real experience with their car, and only have a general imprecise sense of the route they need to take -- and lets do that on a day the self driving cars collectively decided they can't handle the conditions.

That would be like me driving my grandmother around every day everywhere she needs to go, and then when the weather is at its worst... "Hey grams, yeah, I know you've only driven this car a handful of times yourself in the last 5 years, but your license is still valid, so how about you take the wheel today?". And doing that accross an entire city.

Yes, that will work out well.

Comment: Re:Fair Use (Score 2) 101

by vux984 (#47882785) Attached to: Top EU Court: Libraries Can Digitize Books Without Publishers' Permission

As long as its "within a library" it sounds like fair use. Its a public good for libraries to be full of books, digital or otherwise. The more availability the better.

If someone wants to go to a library to read books there instead of buying or borrowing copies, I'm fine with that.

The publishers and authors may object to the small loss of revenue it entails, but its a good trade off for society as a whole.

Comment: Re:Caution is warranted (Score 1) 499

by vux984 (#47882635) Attached to: Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist

It is best to be cautious of who we let into the door for federal service.

Yes, god forbid the federal service be representative of the people. It should only have a certain brand of dyed in the wool pro-government fanatics working for it.

No... the opposite is true. "Snowden" would never have happened if there had been more people like him in government. If more people were willing to question government, and step up when they saw something wrong, then the oversight committees, and internal audit processes would have actually been working properly. There would have been people he could have reported the issues to, and genuine internal investigation and audits would have happened with genuine results.

If it had been working properly Snowden's revelations wouldn't have happened because the level of abuse going on wouldn't have risen to that level in the first place.

Its important to keep actual spies out of sensitive government jobs. Its important to keep people with easily leveraged liabilities -- gambling problems, debt problems, etc out of sensitive government jobs. But a healthy distrust of government is just that HEALTHY.

One of the reasons government doesn't function well, is that it self selects people who are convinced it does. You can't fix what is broken if you only hire people are convinced nothing is wrong.

We desperately need to staff the government with people who have a healthy distrust of the very programs they run, who GENUINELY recognize the potential for abuse, and who are genuinely receptive to reports of abuse.

But those people are systematically turned away.

Comment: Re:One Sure Way (Score 1) 275

by vux984 (#47881787) Attached to: California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews

Maybe you should try hitting an Apple store instead of wherever you're shopping now, because even the *iPad* charger is only $19.00 when you buy it there. [1] (Of course, Apple's chargers will also output more 'juice' safely than most of the $2 chargers.

And the cable is sold separately for another $20. Plus taxes.

Comment: Re:One Sure Way (Score 5, Insightful) 275

by vux984 (#47876381) Attached to: California Tells Businesses: Stop Trying To Ban Consumer Reviews

because for example a good pair of shoes will last much longer than a bad pair that you'll have to replace much sooner.

Thing is there is no correlation between quality and cost.

I've had $100 runners fall apart within months. I've had $2 runners bought at the chinese night market last 4 years. (I had a belt bought the same night for under a buck fall apart the first time I tried using it. But I have inexpensive belts from inexpensive stores that have been with me since high school and are still just fine.

Like you I'm willing to pay more for better. But as often as not I'm paying more for same.

I can buy a car charger online for $2. I can buy another charger online for $10 and its just as good as the OEM one. I can walk into a local cellular store and buy their 'store brand' charger for $35 and find out its the SAME charger as the $2 one. Or I can pay $50 and get an OEM charger from Samsung or Apple etc and its just as good as the $10 generic online one but with a brand name logo and smarter packaging.

So I have to pay 25 times as much to reliably get a few nickels worth of resisters and slightly higher grade plastic? Because anything less, and I'm risking counterfiet goods or horrifically inferior product... but the difference between quality and junk is less than a $1 worth of actual parts/cost.

SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out! -- Ken Thompson