Posts by bombastic bob

Re: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride

wait just a minute, they're promising:

"the update experience is deterministic, reliable, and instant with no interruptions"

And you KNOW that MIcro-shaft would NEVER lie about that!!!

Re: Mystified; how will they force it?

not only is your bias showing, the ignorance is showing, too. Pull up your pants, please.

Re: Honey, we're out of

"butter is first on the list."

Wait until the FOOD POLICE found out you're eating REAL BUTTER which means FAT in your diet, and they know better than YOU how much you should (or should not) be eating...

As for me I eat butter as a SNACK - like potato chips, only it's butter chips.

We in the USA _ALREADY_ have examples of "this sort of thing" happening when you look at FISA court abuse as an example of "mission creep".

It starts out "we have a court we want to use for due process to do spying, because, TERRORISM" and "it will only be on foreign operators using our networks". Then it becomes "and persons of interest engaging with foreign operators on our networks". Then it becomes "and persons of interest but here's legitimate evidence that gives us probable cause."

And then it becomes PURELY FABRICATED ELECTION PROPAGANDA presented as "evidence" by the FBI to a FISA judge, and then it's SIGNED OFF by that judge so that a U.S. citizen working for a presidential campaign can be spied upon by the FBI, by court order, in order to dig up dirt on a candidate to apparently be used against him in some way later on... like in a 2 year long "investigation" about alleged collusion with a foreign government, that _NEVER_ _HAPPENED_ but allegations are enough for "the press" to bad-mouth this politician INDEFINITELY in order to drive elections "their way"!

"Mission Creep" indeed. Big brother icon, of course.

Re: So encrypted posts to USENET it is ...

you have identified, in principle, what will end up happening: only "illegal" encryption will be used, particularly by the bad guys.

It is SO easy to do your own encryption with something as simple as PGP. "send me your public key, here is my public key". etc.. What are "they" going to do, stop you from downloading an application for your Android device that's a simple APK on "some web site" that uses the TOR network or something like that? Ha ha ha good luck with THAT one...

and of course, you could also use temporal public/private keys that are only good for one message each... and are thrown away on a regular basis, so there's no record of what they were. Even if "not that strong" if the amount of data being encrypted by "that one key" is very very small. And so on.

No doubt someone has already written something that could do this, and maybe has even made it available for download. If not, someone probably will... someone NOT in the EU, someone willing to post it online in a public forum and "let the cat out of the bag" kinda like what happened with PGP.

Re: Verify users

"Social media sites above a certain size should be forced to verify user ID. (Good for targeted advertising too)."

See, THAT is the reason there are so many 'fake' accounts. because when you log in to view a site, there's a record of YOU viewing the site. So if you want some anonymity, you create a FAKE ACCOUNT and then view the site. And then you forget you created it, what the password is, etc. because you used one of those '10 minute e-mail' services to create the login anyway...

FB's own policies have CREATED that problem.

"hate speech" => "speech that I don't like" or "speech that hurts my feelings" or "speech that upsets me"

that was more or less my initial reaction. thanks for saying it.

Re: Check the label...

after a few of these, sure

Re: pun violation

The original was a bit better as far as PUNishment goes

Re: "Inadvertently misrouted." Wow, that's what I call a spectacular display of contempt.

I bet it was simply like what might happen to checked luggage - occasionally, it goes onto a different plane, and when that happens, might go to timbuktu before arriving at your destination. If they get it right, you will never know it happened...

Re: 730TB of data and 54,000 CPUs

and that future phone, with all of it's CPU cores, RAM, and computing power, will still have a 2D FLATTY interface, allegedly because it "wastes CPU cycles" to make it 3D Skeuomorphic... (whether people PREFER the 3D or not, and every study _I_ have seen says it's about 2:1 in favor of the 3D-like appearance of things as far back as Windows 3 and OS/2 PM 1.2...)

and people will STILL use their uber-powerful smart phones just to look at cat videos, e-mail, and the next gen of Fa[e][cebook. And maybe a game app or two...

meanwhile, Dreamworks would hopefully settle for an integrated solution where all xxx,xxx cores can work with one another gracefully. And probably running Linux, or a BSD or Solaris derivative OS...

thinking of 'mythical man month' there's 'mythical CPU core count increase' too, for determining how effective a 'moore's law' architecture evolution is when you can't just double the frequency any more.

Re: Who?

nothing wrong with making money. however, HOW you make it is an ethical issue

Re: !#$%*^!$%

if you use your imagination, I'm showing you MY 'inflatable emoji' - ha ha ha ha ha.

Re: You're missing the point.

uh not the same thing as tobacco... though tobacco in the US has been legal forever, built the economy in states like Virginia. Only since the 1960's has there been a push towards regulating tobacco and advertisements for tobacco products. But as long as people are informed, they should still be able to buy this stuff if they want (just don't smoke it near me or upwind of where I'm at)

As for Fa[e]ceBook, same idea. What you need to look at with them is really the obvious, that is ABuse of personal information, and the GENERAL LACK of full disclosure on this.

If use of data were 'opt in' only, for example, some people might want it, but it's likely MOST people would not. FB should sell the idea of an opt-in system, and make it happen and give users total control of what's disclosed (and to whom) and then nobody should complain, because that's what 'full disclosure' is all about. "Oh yeah our product is addicting, and we track you everywhere, but these are the benefits. Interested?"

Re: You're missing the point.

what hurts "moving away" the most is that you [basically] have to LOG IN TO FA[e]CEBOOK to VIEW FACEBOOK PAGES, or at least that's been MY observation, always not being able to see them because I refuse to create an F-book login.

yeah sometimes a search engine will return F-book links. Disappointing, but that's how it works.

Re: You're missing the point.

"it should be regulated as such."

whatever it is, their use of private citizens' data and the apparent lack of disclosure and "informed consent" seems to beg for some kind of legal action at the very least.

Regulatory agencies are basically there so that individuals don't have to go through the expense of lawsuits [class action or otherwise] for abusive, predatory, or outright illegal actions by a business, whether towards the customers, or towards the competition, or both.

However I fear that "regulation" might be like the 'can spam' act was a few years back, which had NOTHING to do with STOPPING spam, but instead ALLOWS it under some broad-brush conditions...

Re: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no ,no ,no, no .....

the title to this thread reminds me of the movie 'Little Nicky' where Little Nicky's brothers (spoiler alert?) were inside of a flask just before the devil "did something" with them... heh heh heh heh

I get the ones that have more meat in them.

Re: Wouldn't it be fun

"The advent of Google DocsLibre/Open Office, among other things, means that small businesses no longer have to have Windows on their machines"

more relevancy, though acknowledged "among other things" as including that...

"the main problem in the West are greedy people who just want to get rich, and don't care about anyone else"

WRONG. You are merely pandering to the "bourgeois vs proletariat" (i.e. communist manifesto) perception of "us vs them" and if you believe that, you're circulating your misconceptions amongst those who agree with you, and it proves NOTHING.

If you want to get down to it, the problem is the same one that's been there as long as there have been humans: A small group of elitists MANIPULATE PEOPLE and seek to CONTROL THEM, usually for nefarious purposes. Usually you find them in GOVERNMENT. People in BUSINESS, on the other hand, generally see everyone else as CUSTOMERS and, if they're smart, treat them accordingly.

A good customer is like gold pressed latinum. yeah even the Ferengi would agree.

People act according to THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST. period. I guarantee you there is NOBODY out there so altruistic (except maybe Jesus) to put EVERYONE ELSE ahead of himself and be self-sacrificing, etc. etc. etc.. Even those who jump on grenades have a self-interest in mind, such as "do it for the Corps/Country/friends". It may even be a matter of PRIDE. And this is _NOT_ a BAD thing... it is a GOOD thing!

So if you assume people act according to their own best interests, those in business WILL make money [because losing money loses the business, duh] and they will pay their investors, who ONLY invest to earn money, and their employees, who ONLY work to earn money, and so on. Then when the free market determines the proper return for investments and what wages the work is worth [and not gummints, special interests, unions, etc.] then we're ALL better off, because it works _WITH_ human nature and not AGAINST it.

SO if you you're looking for a SOURCE of "the problem", start with GUMMINTS, then ORGANIZED CRIME (almost the same as 'gummints' in many cases), then SOCIALIST ORGANIZATIONS and those who donate to them [i.e. Soros], as well as WHINY ACTIVIST JUDGES (and their l[aw]yer buddies) who ENABLE much of this.

It's more fun to dump the bug data/details and watch the chaos unfold...

Re: Diretional antenna

you're right in that a directional antenna will greatly increase range. think radar dishes and old-style TV antennas. but it also reduces the chance of a signal being jammed by an omnidirectional jammer.

and wifi isn't the only wireless system out there [it's just cheaper and more available].

jamming RF isn't going to fix the problem. Too many places in the world literally CODDLE these terrorists and even ENABLE them. Indonesia might have to re-examine its own domestic policies, and controlling EVERYONE isn't the solution, because laws only stop LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from having their freedom - criminals (and terrorists) simply do not care about laws and will do whatever they want, anyway.

Re: WiFi Routers can be anywhere; cell towers are generally in fixed locations

shhh... dion't give them ideas.

Re: 50 years since men first landed on the moon

"And all we've done is doubled our population, and basically fucked our planet."

No. just no. We have _NOT_ 'fucked' our planet. Humans do not have that kind of ability, even with atomic weapons. A volcano blowing up does MORE damage than SEVERAL (typical) nuclear weapons, combined. Think 'Mt St Helens' in Washington (state) a couple o' decades ago, which was estimated at around 25 megatons (there has only been a single bomb recorded as having been larger, and none exist today). Nature is THAT powerful, and it recovers. Humans, not so powerful.

The whole 'population bomb' and 'fucking the planet' mentality _IS_ the problem!!! For if whiny socialists weren't busy trying to "fix" non-existent problems, we'd BE ON THE MOON ALREADY, and probably COLONIZING MARS AS WELL. Yet, politicians and the elitists that ENABLE them would rather have their power/control and SOCIALISM is the vehicle they have chosen to GET and MAINTAIN it. And they DEPRESS economies and keep people out of work as a MEANS TO AN END.

If you buy rockets, you get rockets and the observable technological breakthroughs and economic benefits that come with it.

If you buy SOCIAL PROGRAMS, you get MORE DEPENDENCY, which means MORE VOTES for those that hand out other people's money to BUY those votes. Until Peter can't be robbed any more to pay Paul. Then Paul stops getting paid, when Peter says "who is John Galt".

Re: 50 years since men first landed on the moon

"And America has not been able to replicate it since 1972."

you know what _I_ blame, right?

Re: '13 Minutes to the Moon'

10 minute mail oughta get you "13 minutes to the Moon"

ok bad PUN-ishment... (where's my coat?)

Re: Species angst

it's the lack of what is now thought of as "toxic masculinity", that USED to drive us (as a species) to greatness instead of mediocrity...

When you "educate" (read: indoctrinate) 2 generations of younguns into believing in political correctness and getting participation trophies and "safe spaces" and "just talk it out with the bullies" all of their young lives, you get "what we have now" instead of IRON FACED MEN that TAKE RISKS and SUCCEED in the FACE of ADVERSITY!

The lessons of WW2 (and 100,000 years of human evolution) have been lost...

"In the same year - 1969 - the USSR was running around 200 bar in their vastly superior <snip> NK33"

Whoopee twiddle. They didn't get to the moon, though, did they?

obligatory reference to Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority"

Re: From the dictionary definition

"the engineer's dream is that nominal is normal"

and yet, 'normal' from a statistics point of view, would include a lot of crash/burn and explosions...

So 'nominal' is compared to what is expected to happen. 'normal' is compared to the average. or something like it. We want 'nominal' not 'normal' for the abovementioned reason.

Re: Dumb, dumber, or dumbest ?

"Just how naive are you?"

Apparently, not naive enough to believe the "apollo denier" theories. And neither am I.

I watched every live coverage of every Apollo launch. I nearly missed one because I had to go to school, but the teacher left it on with a large TV (ok 25" black & white on a wheelie cart but still it was 1970'ish) in the classroom and the volume turned down. "History" after all.

I doubt, SERIOUSLY doubt, that any of it was made up. The tech was just SO obviously working, the science was good, and the entire WORLD was watching. Literally.

If you weren't actually THERE to remember it, you shouldn't be trying to pawn this theory off on people who WERE.

icon, because facepalm

Re: I'm terribly sorry (not really) that I have to be the one to pee in your crazy punch again

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-106-17393HR.jpg

I say it's the core of a former comet. LOTS of 'weathering' there, right? A few million years of solar winds and comet tail oughta make it like that, ya think?

Re: I'm terribly sorry (not really) that I have to be the one to pee in your crazy punch again

what the HELL was THAT supposed to be, anyway?

no doubt green-screen'd in at some point.

*yawn* - should've made it a grey alien instead. Then more people would believe it.

Re: beancounters at the top

"Do NOT blame NASA for the failings of Congress."

I DO blame NASA, in some respects, for spending too much time going after politically-correct "science" projects... which isn't happening right now, thankfully. Politics drives them, it seems. I blame them for going along with it TOO WILLINGLY.

However, what Con-GRAB wants to do may be a whole lot WORSE. They'll spend money on agendas and political favors in the form of gummint contracts and NASA projects, like they have done somewhat recently.

Think of it this way: Con-GRAB will spend the people's money to BUY VOTES. It's "the establishment" that is behind it, regardless of which political party. It's ugly, dirty, corrupt, and evil. Knowing that, I vote for the lesser of evils whenever I have a choice.

I have something I put into a demotivational once. With a picture of the nearly complete space station from the movie "2001 a Space Odyssey", the caption reads"The Great Society" "If it hadn't been for LBJ and those whiny socialist liberals, we'd be colonizing Mars by now".

it's what happens when you divert money from BUYING ROCKETS (which boost the economy, cause technology to improve faster, and have far reaching economic benefits, as a Keynesian economist would LOVE this part), as compared to BUYING PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK by giving them "subsistence" for sitting on their ASSES [and taking drugs, and breeding, and protesting against America, and so on]. Yeah it's the truth, deal with it. So you get what you're PAYING FOR, ok? Gummint paying for ROCKETS gets rockets, heroes, great accomplishments worthy of news headlines and the people's adoration, and a better world and better economy and jobs and so on. Paying for WELFARE gets you WELFARE RECIPIENTS, lifelong dependents on handouts who DEMAND MORE, and vote for those who GIVE it to them.

Re: beancounters at the top

"if there is a viable business case to be had for being on the Moon"

1. space tourism

2. jumping-off spot for other places [we'll need moon bases for that] "Flight 404 leaving for Saturn at gate 12"

3. astronomy [telescopes, etc.] especially on the non-earth side

4. low gravity therapy (for people who can afford it)

5. "it's a frontier" (mining being one good possibility)

And so on. If I could, I'd go there. I'd probably want to set up a mining operation. The first people there will be able to get to the surface stuff, major lodes, and whatnot.

Also, it would be easier to allow people to mull around at 1/6 gravity, rather than zero gravity, between flights. Less vomiting, for one thing. And you could have large tanks of fuel and whatnot standing by for fueling up space ships, and they wouldn't need atmospheric accomodations, nor enough fuel to break away from the earth [just enough fuel to leave the moon's gravity, a LOT less].

I would also expect that shuttles to the moon would be more practical if you could fill them up with people for multiple destinations, like taking a short hop to a major hub (say LAX) for international flights.

Re: beancounters at the top

"21st century NASA, Boeing and the ULA seem to be top-heavy with people who are more interested in pay and politics than in getting the job done on time and without killing people"

Quite possible. Yet, look at Boeing's reputation taking a BIG hit over what they did with the newer 737's, and the resulting crashes, and what they're gonna have to do to fix it before the planes go in the air [are they STILL grounded? I haven't heard much].

If the FAA does its job correctly they should also manage space-related flight. And if it's UNSAFE, it gets GROUNDED, and the company responsible must fix it at no charge. That is actually good motivation to get safety and human life to the top of the priority list...

(and the same goes for space-liners around the world - no more 737 MAX fiascos)

Worthy of reminder when there's a crash anywhere in the world the FAA is going to want to analyze it to prevent it from happening again, and since many of those planes are built in the USA, they'll stick their noses in whenever they wanna, for good reason. It's one of the things gummint does _RIGHT_.

Anyway those bean counters that actually think bottom line comes before safety oughta fear losing their jobs the next time something like the 737MAX fiasco happens.

Re: Those were the days

"a private company that puts its reputation on the line is a much better guarantee of safety."

I think so as well, at least in the CURRENT environment. [at least one lost space shuttle may have been due to environmental 'concerns', changing the glue that held the insulation on the fuel tank to a more 'environmentally friendly' one, which allowed it to break loose and damage the shuttle's wing, etc., because as we all know, "the environment" is more important than safety and human life... to THEM, anyway - it's their "god". But I digress...)

'Back in the day' the U.S. gummint was more interested in getting technological superiority over their 'behind the iron curtain' equivalents in the USSR, for several reasons, not the least of which WW2 was an ACTUAL MEMORY and nobody wanted to repeat it with the Soviet Union on the other side. And Kruschev was threatening everyone, banging his shoe, etc..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev

If the threat was not real, he made it SOUND real, for whatever reason.

So NASA was highly motivated to succeed. And JFK was as well. Presidents back then (both D and R) were ANTI-communists, and had memories of WW2, and so on. And so did the people, and the people love heros and want the world to be a safe place, and space became IMPORTANT, and so the motivation to succeed, and take the risks to get there [and pay for it].

I wish it were still that way, because I'd rather buy rockets and fire them into space than give money away for nothing. But I digress...

But now, private industries compete against one another the way the USA and USSR competed against one another. So the motivation is there to "beat Boeing" or "beat SpaceX" etc. and Amazon is in the mix now, and Virgin Air is in there someplace...

So yeah, company reputation and safety records and getting there first. THAT is the motivation!

Profit is good. (Ferengi rules of acquisition, heh). But without profit, there would be no investors, and therefore no 'bucks', and therefore, no "Buck Rogers". You can't be a wasteful black hole of expenses into which money is thrown, if you are a private industry. Take THAT anti-capitalists!