Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Various methods exist... (Score 3, Insightful) 204

by vux984 (#47950449) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Avoid Becoming a Complacent Software Developer?

but don't try anything too clever. Otherwise some cop will get a gut feeling or a hunch and the minute he's officially taken off the case you're toast.

You know it. And from watching things like Bones and CSI:Miami I know that not only do they investigate every case like its the only thing they have to do with their time, but that money is also generally no object. And if you are really unlucky, the laws of physics will turn out to be fairly flexible to.

Comment: Re:CRTC needs to be reined in (Score 1) 273

by vux984 (#47949243) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

There's no place any more for cultural protectionism.

Canadian content laws combined with tax incentives are what created and sustains hollywood north, a significant film and TV production industry within Canada that would otherwise not exist, that generates jobs and incomes in Canada.

Kill the laws, and you kill an industry. How does Canada win that way exactly?

Protecting Canadian content is far more than just protecting Canadian "culture", its a very real protection of a whole industry that pretty clearly and objectively benefits the country overall.

Comment: Re:There is no "almost impossible" (Score 1) 224

by vux984 (#47949171) Attached to: Apple's "Warrant Canary" Has Died

. Is forcing someone's finger onto their iPhone's sensor forcing them to reveal information under duress?

It would be no different then forcing a suspect to provide fingerprints or dna samples. They'd need a warrant for it, but they could absolutely do it.

I agree if they just forced you without a warrant, that you'd probably get it all ruled inadmissible.

Comment: Re:Hahaha (Score 2) 273

by vux984 (#47949065) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

they'd need to get every ISP and VPN provider in the country to block access to it,

You make that sound hard.

If they block it from about 5 companies that'll cover most of the countries reasonable choices, and most of the remainder are just resellers of bandwidth from the big ones.

And blocking VPN providers? Why bother? Only a small fraction will bother using one. Just because people -can- get around it, doesn't mean most of them will bother trying.

Meanwhile the cable and dsl providers would probably jump for joy at at a government ordered netflix ban. It eliminates a significant competitor, and a huge source of bandwidth usage all in one fell swoop, and if anyone complains its the governments fault.

So no, your full of it, if you think netflix can just 'laugh in their faces'. It would be pretty easy for Canada to toss them out if they wanted to. Blocking access at the cross-border links, and seizing any netflix equipment in the country. I'm not in favor of any such draconian action, don't for a second think it isn't both possible and easy.

then continued on happily taking credit card payments and sending traffic to Canada.

Given they have to license content separately specifically to send it to Canada this would not make the slightest bit of sense. The ONLY content they can turn a 'blind eye' to, would be Canadian's paying from a US address/US card and funnelling traffic through a VPN. And they can only do THAT as long as its not a big enough issue to get them in trouble with the rights owners -- who will start demanding netflix blacklist VPN providers etc.

It's not Netflix fault that Canada doesn't produce any noteworthy cultural exports. Lots of other good stuff, sure, but TV and movies not so much.

Two words: "Hollywoord North" I mean seriously, Canada may not produce much worthwhile truly independent content but its been very successful at using Canadian content requirements coupled with tax incentives to create a pretty substantial tv/movie production industry where one would otherwise not exist, creating jobs, and funneling some money into Canada in the process.

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 392

by vux984 (#47948189) Attached to: Scotland Votes No To Independence

Bingo. The president is not a king.

I mean seriously read the freaking constitution people, or the wikipedia article about it. The powers of the president interms of actually DOING things is pretty light.

pardons and receive ambassadors are about all he can really do at will

veto bills (but can be overridden by congress)

make political appointments (subject to congress/senate approving them)

commander in cheif of the armed forces -- but even this is heavily restricted by congress, and something like closing a base isn't something he can do with the stroke of a pen.

etc... its really FAR more important who is in congress than who sits in the whitehouse. The only difference being that the president is one person so he makes a good figure head, while congress and the senate are shifting blobs of largely faceless politicos who despite being actually responsible for everything take almost no responsibility for their actions.

Comment: Re:Never been a fan of multiplayer. (Score 1) 291

by vux984 (#47940115) Attached to: The Growing Illusion of Single Player Gaming

You think if someone is better than you they must be 'hard core' and play all the time.

Not at all.

but that hand eye co-ordination to play video games well? Not everyone has it, a lot of people don't really.

Again making the 'average' player pretty mediocre.

The game sales, isn't from casual / occasional gamers. It's from average gamers.

Average gamers don't master games. They play them, and move on. Half Live 2 was a pretty easy game, and pretty top rated... according to steam ~14% have finished it, meaning 86% of players did not.

Even if we filter out the people who barely tried it (got it free or bundled and played for 15 minutes then moved on) we can look at the people who got halfwaty through vs the ones that finished it, and again its approximately half. Or duke nukem forever ... 25% completed the single player game on EASY. 1% completed the game on 'insane'. Sure, around 25% didn't get much past the title screen... but even filtering that out, a shockinly low number of people who played it beat it. Spelunky ... same thing... most owners haven't beaten the first stage. But even of the ones who have, only a fraction of those have gotten very much further.

That 1% who beat duke nukem on insane. Those are the type of people who dominate in multiplayer games. They are the ones who memorize all the maps, master all the weapons, and plug away at the SAME game for days and weeks on end. They are not 'average' they are the 1%.

The average gamer ('gamer' IS 'casual' for any given title. They just churn through a lot more games. Where a truly casual player will only play games a few times month AT ALL. The average GAMER only puts 10-40 hours into a game, if that, before moving onto the next one. They are 'gamers' because they spend a lot of time playing games, they are much better than a truly casual player at most games, but they are still just noobs compared to the the hardcore players in any given game.. The hardcore players have racked up 100s even 1000s of hours in their chosen mastered titles. Me, I've got 75 hours in left 4 dead 2, I more than hold my own and am an above average player. But compared to a hard core player, I don't know squat. And for left 4 dead... I'm pretty casual... even if I play games 30-40 hours a week... I only put in a session of left 4 dead once or twice a month when the right friends are online and mood takes us.

But my brother in law, with nearly 800 hours in the game, knows where every short cut is, every possible item spawn point, every respawn closet, every wall that breaks during a horde, routes to kite tanks on every map, proven tactics on where to set up for every finale. I've got another friend with a similar number of hours in both of Payday 2 and Infestation, he's another very good FPS player, and yet he's almost a liability in Left4Dead with only 5 or so hours in it. and he's got a group he plays with regularly and that takes it to a whole other level. To get thrown up against him and his friends in a multiplayer battle (even if there's just 2 of them) ... the average gamer has absolutely no chance at all.

Comment: Re:Downloading music for free? Scandelous! (Score 1) 320

by vux984 (#47922257) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

Let's flash back 20 years...

Ok... 20 years ago? I got an AOL CD in the mail about once a week, and it went straight into the trash. I was also signed up to Columbia house 11-cds-for-a-penny-deals and routinely got their unsolicited discs because i wasn't always great about sending in the go-away postcards.

The AOL disks went in the trash, the Columbia house discs, if they weren't explicitly ordered were returned to sender. And the stuff I actually ordered, naturally I kept.

If I'd had a maid, that's what she'd have been instructed to do with any CDs that arrived in the mail too. Assuming she wouldn't be able to tell unsolicited from solicited purchases, she'd have been instructed to set them aside.

Apparently if this had been your house, once a week the maid would have dutifully installed a new 30 day impossible to cancel AOL trial on your laptop for you, and once a month you would have found unbelievably crappy CDs on your rack coupled with collection notices from columbia house (or maybe your maid just paid those for you to)?

No... 20 years ago, the maid would definitely not have put anything that just showed up at the house away like you seem to think.

Comment: Re:Obvious (Score 1) 73

by vux984 (#47921747) Attached to: NSW Police Named as FinFisher Spyware Users

I guess a better example would be the nearly exclusively Catholic IRA fighting against a protestestant majority. Bombings, torture, murder, rape... yep all present. Sympathetic Catholics in other countries providing them support, aid, even joining them, etc... yep that happened too.

Didn't get as bad as Iraq/Afghanistan mind you, but that's not on the merits of Islam vs Catholicism, that simply because the UK was never a failed state the way Iraq and Afghanistan have been. The UK even at its "worst", still overall had very well functioning national and regional governments, military, and police forces. Its impoverished were still "first world poor" not "3rd world poor". Had a 3rd party, primarily interested its its own exploitative resource extraction concerns toppled the UK government and bombed out the nations infrastructure, creating widespread issues and a power vacuum; had it been reduced to 3rd world poverty levels -- is it really unreasonable to imagine things getting a whole lot uglier?

My point is its not "Islam". Its just "people". That we have a problem with Muslim terrorism right now, is simply some people who happen to be muslim have been oppressed and driven to terrorism to fight back. If Afghanistan had been predominantly westboro baptist... we'd have westboro baptist terrorist groups causing problems right now. Its really that simple.

Comment: Re:Illegal to use proxy services [Re: So-to-speak (Score 1) 417

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) 291

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) 588

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) 417

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) 417

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) 588

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.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.