Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bottom line (Score 1) 9

by smitty_one_each (#47585657) Attached to: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right?

You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

No no, the desperation is 100% on your end, I assure you.

I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this.

Strong correlation with consciousness during the previous 6 years, I suppose.

So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".

Your continued desperation to attach ownership of the GOP to me is. . .quaint. The only numbers that are going to matter are the results of the November elections.

If the GOP are invertebrates, then the democrats are - at most structurally - pond scum. They haven't stood for much of anything as a party in over a decade.

Aw, c'mon, boss: both stand for the increase of Federal power.

What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.

Oh, OW! Oh, that hurts! Oh, the suffering! Imma go cry now.

Comment: Three duh's from the article: (Score 1) 54

by malakai (#47581021) Attached to: Multipath TCP Introduces Security Blind Spot

Three duh's from the article:

Trust models users and networks have fostered with Internet providers are also changed—and in some cases broken. Contrary to that, providers will no longer be able to sniff traffic—under court order for example—unless they work hand in hand with other providers handling split traffic sessions.

They lost me at "Trust models users .... have fostered with Internet providers".... Duh.

“Technology like MPTCP makes it much harder for surveillance states,” Pearce said. “If I split traffic across my cell provider and an ISP I may not trust, in order for a surveillance state to snoop they have to collaborate with all these parties. It’s a much harder proposition.”

Who cares? And if you really care enough, and you are a suveilance state, you can sniff from the soruce, or a common route in between in which all the data flows. Will you have to spend a little extra CPU and Memmory to piece together the full stream? yeah, duh.

Finally, Pearce said, there will be ambiguity for firewalls about what incoming and outgoing traffic looks like. She said that MPTCP enables endpoints to tell servers there are other addresses to which the server may connect, but the firewall may not necessarily interpret that as an outgoing connection.

And not very hard to fix for the firewall vendors. Will you have to patch your FW? Probably. Is that a problem? No, duh.

Comment: Re:Bottom line (Score 1) 9

by smitty_one_each (#47578435) Attached to: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right?

A pass for, or to do, what exactly?

Um, to. . .occupy the. . .(wait for it). . .Resolute Desk.

He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?

So then are you done calling for impeachment?

As I was explaining to my dad during the daily call on the way home, the way politics works, you don't bring anything to a vote unless you know what the outcome will be. While, in a absolute sense, I don't doubt that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors"

Contrary to some less than informed opinion, "high crimes and misdemeanors"--the legal standard for impeachment--refers not to indictable criminal offenses but to profound breaches of the public trust by high-ranking officials. Once the standard is understood, it becomes easy to see that the president and his underlings have committed numerous, readily provable impeachable offenses. Yet, even if a president commits a hundred high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is a non-starter unless the public is convinced that the president should be removed from power. The real question is political: Are his lawlessness and unfitness so thoroughgoing that we can no longer trust him with the awesome power of the chief executive?

Thus, November can be reviewed as a No-Talent Rodeo Clown Referendum: the same fickle electorate that returned Pres'ent Obama to the White House could just as easily. . .somehow expect the spineless GOP to locate some vertebrae, given power, I guess. Not holding my breath. I'm not sure, at that point, what difference impeachment is supposed to make, other than giving your girl the ultimate Race Card play.

I couldn't get the article to load

Google cache?

Comment: Re:Please don't take my nerd card (Score 2) 259

by jawtheshark (#47574201) Attached to: How long ago did you last assemble a computer?
Edsger W. Dijkstra was stupid?

You can do computer science just with paper and pen. That is entirely feasible and totally common in any computer science curriculum at any halfway decent university. Oh, you thought that computer science = programming. Well, yeah, no... it isn't and technically you can program without a computer too. You just can't run your programs.

Comment: Bottom line (Score 1) 9

by smitty_one_each (#47572761) Attached to: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right?
The voters gave #OccupyResoluteDesk a pass in 2012. Until such time as the voters give the GOP such a commanding majority that substantial action is possible, all the impeachment talk is just so much hormonal whinging. What really must terrify the GOP is that, given such power, the silent conservative majority would expect them to accomplish some no-kidding reform. Which is why the GOP prefers the sweet passive aggression of letting the IRS crush the Tea Parties.
To your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010" point, you may find this interesting.

Comment: Re:What's your point? (Score 1) 29

by smitty_one_each (#47572713) Attached to: Practical socialism
Look at what you wrote:

It requires no intellect, and certainly no "morality" of any kind. It is a natural predator and prey relationship. And all attempts to regulate it have been quite farcical at best. Can't expect much different when sociopathy is the dominant trait of those we support.

Examples of cooperative ecosystems abound. Indeed, things veer into "sociopathy" when resources are constrained, which is an odd word choice following your 'no "morality" of any kind'. If it's all amoral, how do you gauge a sociopath? (Asking for a cereal killer).

Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955