Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site March 01, 2015, 06:32:43 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
The N.A.N.Y. Challenge 2010! Download 24 custom programs!
   
  Forum Home Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
      View this member's profile 
      donate to someone Donate to this member 
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 413 Next
101  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: The banality of the darknet developer on: February 06, 2015, 09:44:32 AM
I just want to interject a bit on the term "darknet developer"...

 

102  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Programming/Coder humor on: February 05, 2015, 09:12:14 PM
Best StackOverflow answer.  Ever.

http://stackoverflow.com/...xhtml-self-contained-tags

 Cry

Oh my god... that was BEAUTIFUL~! EPIC~! Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup

103  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: February 05, 2015, 09:04:20 PM
On the topic of data fraud, Benford's law is extremely interesting. It has to do with the distribution of digits. Here's a nice explanation of it:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjlR2OK1kM</a>

And the associated blog post:

http://periodicvideos.blo...w-and-youtube-videos.html

Of course, if you already know this, you can still create fraudulent data that conforms to Benford's law; that merely indicates a higher level of sophistication on the part of the fraudster.
104  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Movies or films you've seen lately on: February 05, 2015, 07:55:09 PM
My primary concern was that it would be too raunchy/inappropriate.

Are we getting old? smiley

I have no problems with cursing and a lot of other things, but I no longer need to see any gore - at all. I used to "kind of" like gore flicks, but not at all anymore.

As for sex in movies, I hate it. If it's actually a very real plot device, and done carefully, it can work, but that's exceedingly rare. I think I like the Jackie Chan level of sex in movies, i.e. possibly a peck on the cheek. With lots of free porn available, there's no reason to have it in movies at all. (Well, unless you're a 14-year old boy, but then there's still National Geographic and the Sears catalogue. tongue )

So... yeah... I get that "too raunchy/inappropriate" bit. There are movies that I simply never watch because I know that they're going to have a lot of that, and I'm just not interested in it.

I don't recall if there was much of that in Guardians of the Galaxy though.
105  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Interesting "stuff" on: February 05, 2015, 07:45:11 PM
I messed with someone's video driver at work so it reduced the viewport by 1 pixel every day.  Long term pranks are the best.


HAHAHAHA~! That is EVIL~! I love it~! Grin  Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup Thmbsup
106  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Interview with Richard Bennett, inventor of Ethernet, Wi-Fi MAC, etc. on: February 05, 2015, 07:20:12 PM
Tom Woods interviews Richard Bennett.

From the show notes:

Quote
Richard Bennett, a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, is an expert on Internet technology and public policy. He co-invented Ethernet over Twisted Pair, the Wi-Fi MAC protocol, and miscellaneous network enhancements such as the MPDU Aggregation system for 802.11n, the Distributed Reservation Protocol for UWB, and various tweaks and hacks to the Internet and OSI protocols.

His experience with legislative bodies spans two decades, beginning with expert witness testimony before multiple committees of the California legislature in the 1990s and continuing to recent testimony before the U.S. Congress on Internet privacy.

SHOW TOPIC: Richard goes over the history of networking and then gets into net neutrality.

FAIR WARNING: Tom is a historian (Harvard/Columbia) and an anarchist (ancap), so he's not the kind of fellow that everyone will like. However, the show is mainly about the history and economics of networking with very little about anarchism.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W90JjdWLYoU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W90JjdWLYoU</a>

Show Notes: http://tomwoods.com/podca...ternet-without-the-state/

107  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: February 05, 2015, 06:49:56 PM
Apologies if I wasn't clear and you felt offended.

Me? Hell no! smiley I just figure that you like to poke me a bit every now and then to see how I react (or, go off the rails as it were). Grin I'd be remiss if I didn't! Cool


I also think I see where some confusion enters into the picture. I wasn't responding to your post immediately above mine. It was a more general question - as in I don't know much about a lot of this, so do you have some good in-depth sources (like an online university level course or two) you'd care to share that puts you in a better position than me to say what's real when it comes to this stuff?

There's not much that anyone needs to know. A guy blew the whistle.

Now, for the underlying issue, yes - we would need a good amount of additional information, e.g. university level courses, to comment on the "science". However, I don't think that this is one topic that we should get into as it is simply far too hot.

There are quite a few lectures (from experts in the field) that you can view online about the underlying issue. The range of opinions spans the full gambit from super-uber-pro-vaccine, down through the range of healthy skepticism, and way on over to rabidly-anti-vaccine.

Tomos hits exactly what we should be concerned about:

(FWIW I'm broadly pro-vaccine myself, but dubious about the methods used to force it on the populace, and dubious about relations between the FDA and the corporations developing the vaccines.)

But, those issues are about 1) forced medication, and 2) corruption, which while a degree in philosophy or law is certainly an advantage in discussing them, there's enough wiggle room for input from others. smiley

However, that's off topic. My original point in the post above was to point out a whistle blower in the scientific community. This goes to illustrate:

1) "Scientists" are human.
2) Humans are corruptible.

It is that bit of corruption that is a serious issue for those that claim "peer review" is some kind of holy cow in science.

 
108  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: February 05, 2015, 11:25:02 AM
@40 - I said exactly nothing towards one side of the debate on the topic. I merely pointed out that a researcher at Merck has pointed out that they were involved in scientific fraud. I think that I'm educated enough to point out that a scientific researcher has blown the whistle on fraud. This isn't really an issue of qualifications. Wink

Given that this researcher was directly involved in "revising" the data, I kinda think he might have a thing or two to say on the issue/fraud.

But, y'know... Like I said... It's going to upset some people. Wink

While I don't automatically dismiss a lot of what you're saying or arguing for out of hand, I'm still less confident than you are about the validity of a lot of the 'evidence' being presented.

Are you high? I post drunk sometimes, and I do go off the rails every now and then, but this is pretty clear cut -- a researcher at Merck has blown the whistle that they published fraudulent information about one of their products. That's all. It's a simple matter of fact. Are you trying to say that Stephen A Krahling doesn't actually exist, or that he didn't blow the whistle? Wink

Or, are you trying to say that one of the researchers involved in the product that has blown the whistle isn't qualified to talk about what he was researching? Wink

In case you missed it, here's the document for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the action took place:

[attachurl=#]

I suppose that someone could look it up here:

https://www.paed.uscourts.gov

But... from here: https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/us01001.asp

Quote
What You Need
  • Personal computer
  • Compatible Web browser (CM/ECF has been tested and works correctly with Netscape 4.7x and 7.0x. and Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0)
  • Internet access
[/size]

I'm not that confident that they're very competent. Wink

I told you it would be uncomfortable. cheesy
109  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 05, 2015, 10:51:00 AM
Am I missing something?

Yes.

Quote
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is speech not allowed in court?


Maybe you meant Amendments V through VIII?

Nope. We don't even need to go there. Full stop at the 1st. That's all that is needed to show that the US judicial system is a complete and total farce and that the judges and related officers are nothing but criminals.


I don't see anything in any of the above that was clearly (or even obscurely) violated. Sad

The first was obviously violated.

Or is speech in court not counted?

That would be a clear violation of the 6th, but only if you believe that a trial involves actually allowing a defense. If you don't believe that defendents are allowed to present a defense, then, well, all bets are off. Accusations equal convictions?

I think that we both know where that leads. The 4th box.


Perhaps you're saying that the due process itself is unjust? Well, therein lies the critical difference between what the law actually says - as opposed to what most of us (i.e. non-attorneys) usually think it says or wish it said.

There is no due process. It's a bloody joke. The rules are "fixed".

Quote

A mighty fine proposition! tongue

If the law is incomprehensible, f**k it. Really.

Does everyone need to have a law degree to function?

If so, then yes. Killing all the lawyers is a good start to stave off that insanity.

You don't get off that easy talking about "Oh, gee, if only we poor serfs understood the heights and depths of law, and how it makes 'society' a better place!"

BS.

If everyone needs to spend 4 years of their life studying law, killing all the lawyers is a far, far better option.

Should we have any problems with slitting people's throats when they're attempting to force people into labour? Slavery isn't cool, and the implications of what you've said imply exactly that (if one accepts that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" -- need to be somewhat clear with that qualification before we start killing all the lawyers tongue ).

Keep this in mind:

http://thelead.blogs.cnn....laws-take-effect-in-2014/

40,000 new laws. That YOU are responsible for. Personally. And that you MUST know. (Ok, well... some you won't need to know because you are in IT and don't need to know some new commercial fishing laws, etc. But either way... 40,000 or 400... it's a LOT!)

Sorry - No. There is no reasonable expectation for most people to know what the law is. At all. Except in the most basic forms, e.g. theft, murder, etc.

40,000 new laws? In 1 year? Really?

Ignorance of the law **IS** an excuse.

But, this is a wild tangent.

It still remains that the judge violated Ross' fundamental right to free speech in proscribing several of his proposed defenses.

The real criminal here is Katherine Bolan Forrest (TOR .onion link).

If Ross was the DPR, he did nothing wrong.

If Ross was the DPR, he's a bloody hero.

Please note that some of the most popular drugs on the Silk Road were prescription drugs sold for 10% of the cost of regular prescriptions.

Does that give any more perspective on the issue? Wink





110  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 05, 2015, 08:54:48 AM
Let's drop the jury selection bit. We're going across jurisdictions, and my memory of law classes may be a bit fuzzy. So, it's not a point that I think I can keep up with. Call it a win for 40hz. Wink (And I'll check into the docs you posted once I have time.)

But you didn't address the 1st amendment violation. This seems to be a teensy, tiny bit important.

I don't see how there's any way around that.

The judge put a gun to the defense's head and threatened them if they tried a sane defense (speech).

Trying to claim "federal rules of evidence" doesn't address the issue. If anything, it only illustrates the debasement of the first amendment and the criminality of the courts, judges, lawyers, and politicians that are complicit in that crime.
111  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: February 05, 2015, 08:33:22 AM
Some very uncomfortable damnation for "peer review" and "science"...

FAIR WARNING: This will upset some people. There are many stories in the MSM revolving around this broader issue at the moment.

Fraud at Merck.

Link to source document (PDF).

112  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Programming/Coder humor on: February 05, 2015, 07:18:11 AM
RFC 1925

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1925


Network Working Group                                  R. Callon, Editor
Request for Comments: 1925                                          IOOF
Category: Informational                                     1 April 1996


                      The Twelve Networking Truths

Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  This memo
   does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of
   this memo is unlimited.

Abstract

   This memo documents the fundamental truths of networking for the
   Internet community. This memo does not specify a standard, except in
   the sense that all standards must implicitly follow the fundamental
   truths.

Acknowledgements

   The truths described in this memo result from extensive study over an
   extended period of time by many people, some of whom did not intend
   to contribute to this work. The editor merely has collected these
   truths, and would like to thank the networking community for
   originally illuminating these truths.

1. Introduction

   This Request for Comments (RFC) provides information about the
   fundamental truths underlying all networking. These truths apply to
   networking in general, and are not limited to TCP/IP, the Internet,
   or any other subset of the networking community.

2. The Fundamental Truths

   (1)  It Has To Work.

   (2)  No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
        you can't increase the speed of light.

        (2a) (corollary). No matter how hard you try, you can't make a
             baby in much less than 9 months. Trying to speed this up
             *might* make it slower, but it won't make it happen any
             quicker.

Callon                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 1925            Fundamental Truths of Networking        1 April 1996


   (3)  With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
        not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
        are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
        as they fly overhead.

   (4)  Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
        understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
        networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
        builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
        network.

   (5)  It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems
        into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
        this is a bad idea.

   (6)  It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
        the problem to a different part of the overall network
        architecture) than it is to solve it.

        (6a) (corollary). It is always possible to add another level of
             indirection.

   (7)  It is always something

        (7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't
            have all three).

   (8)  It is more complicated than you think.

   (9)  For all resources, whatever it is, you need more.

       (9a) (corollary) Every networking problem always takes longer to
            solve than it seems like it should.

   (10) One size never fits all.

   (11) Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
        a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.

        (11a) (corollary). See rule 6a.

   (12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
        is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
        away.


Callon                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 1925            Fundamental Truths of Networking        1 April 1996


Security Considerations

   This RFC raises no security issues. However, security protocols are
   subject to the fundamental networking truths.

References

   The references have been deleted in order to protect the guilty and
   avoid enriching the lawyers.

Author's Address

   Ross Callon
   Internet Order of Old Farts
   c/o Bay Networks
   3 Federal Street
   Billerica, MA  01821

   Phone: 508-436-3936
   EMail: rcallon@baynetworks.com

Callon                       Informational                      [Page 3]

113  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 05, 2015, 06:46:43 AM
@Ren - You're still overlooking the 800lb gorilla in the picture.

If you mean the thugs that call themselves "government" or "government employees", well, no argument that they are the 800lb gorilla. Wink

re: jury nullification

Again, almost always in movies.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler

Quote
R v Morgentaler [1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.

Jury nullification there. And one of the most important cases in Canadian law.

A paper on it here:

http://www.academia.edu/2...ion_in_a_Canadian_Context

p. 62~64 (screwed formatting)
 
Quote
The unanimous decision in Krieger was written by Justice Fish and it further demonstrates the Supreme Court of Canada‘s willingness to link law and morality, embracing edicts of natural law. The Supreme Courtaffirmed the not guilty verdict which the trial jury would have rendered because they believed more so in the process than the plain meaning interpretation of the statute. Fish states

    It has since then (in 1670, when jurors were fined and imprisoned for a ―not guilty verdict) been well established that under the system of justice we have inherited fromEngland juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the  power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course.

This paragraph is suggestive that the judges of the Supreme Court believe in juries using their own morality. Justice Fish is quick to point out that the process of refusing to apply the law, or nullification is not ― a matter of right but that the power to do so exists, only when it is deemedby that jury to be absolutely necessary. When a jury‘s collective conscience tells them that thereis ―no other course‖ of action this is when nullification is absolutely necessary, as the jury felt in
was the situation in this case. Furthermore, the Court continues into the next paragraph by stating 
63
case law from 1784 that they have used throughout Canadian jurisprudence as the base for jurynullification:

    It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between Godand their own consciences.

Justice Fish indicates that while the Court has decided in this case and going forward that trial judges should not instruct jurors on how to find, that judges should still instruct jurors on what is the most appropriate legal course of action, or how to ―do right. Whether or not a jury chooses to abide by that course of action is, as the Supreme Court decided in this case, up to them.

Fish is here:

http://scc.lexum.umontrea.../2006scc47/2006scc47.html

Cached here (I couldn't load it):

http://webcache.googleuse...mp;gl=au&client=opera

Just one important snippet from there:

Quote
The trial judge deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a trial by jury when he directed the jury to find the accused guilty as charged.  The trial judge’s direction was not a “slip of the tongue” to be evaluated in the context of the charge as a whole; nor is this a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations.  His purpose and words were clear.  In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court.

A kind of important point there. 

Attorneys are expected to argue for the law as it applies to the case, and the facts as presented. It's generally been seen as a violation of an attorney's oath (as an officer of the court) for one to ask a jury to ignore the law as it exists when considering their verdict.

Juries are perfectly free to ignore the law. That's the point. Talking about the "officer of the court" being paid to railroad people and ensure that the jury is ignorant of their rights, and flat out deceived about them... that's another matter.

And there's also a great deal of legal precedent that says that even though juries may choose to nullify, the courts are under no obligation to tell them they can - or - to allow an attorney on either side to so inform them. And that opinion goes back a number of years, and was the determination made in several different rulings on the subject of jury nullification.

Not to be snotty or anything, but I'm not sure whether you're trying to be deliberately beligerent or whether you just don't know that the judge in this case explicitly banned the defense from mentioning it (see below re: 1st amendment). (Are you just screwing with me for kicks? I can't say as I'd blame you -- it can be fun trolling sometimes, and I'm a good target. smiley tongue )

For a judge to forbid someone to defend themself is beyond unconscionable.

I really don't understand how you don't see this.

Just to be clear... the judge **threatened** the defense and explicitly forbade the defense from using jury nullification in their defense.


So while it may seem like a cool idea for juries to take the initiative and override a law they disagree with when reaching a verdict (and they legally can do just that under US law) it's a dangerous road to go down. Because if it becomes commonplace, the entire legal system goes out the door and you have a small-scale version of mob rule in effect. Which means it's not the law, or the facts in a case, but rather the jury selection that becomes the deciding factor in obtaining a judgement. Which is ripe for abuse by both the prosecution and the defence.

Any country with common law. Canada, Australia, etc.

And, uh, no. Not a bad road at all. Wink

Remember... the next box is the cartridge box... Best to avoid that. Wink

Jury nullification is not "setting murderers free". Jury nullification is a judgement against a law.

e.g. Tomorrow possessing ginger ale is made illegal, and the police show up to arrest me (I just bottled another batch earlier today). It goes to trial. The jury votes "not guilty" knowing damn well that I had ginger ale.

That's not a statement about me -- it's a statement that the law is wrong.

i.e. "He had ginger ale. So what? Stupid law. Not guilty of anything that should be punishable."

It is very different from cases like that fellow in Florida in the late 80s who killed his wife, but got off with the defense "justifiable homicide". Very big difference. The laws against murder weren't nullified there.

This (proscribing jury nullification as a defense) is a BLATANT violation of the first amendment to the US Constitution in limiting what someone can say.

There's no wiggle room here. None. Zero. Nadda. Zilch. Zippo. Done. That's all she wrote.

The US Constitution, as other national constitutions, is meant to limit or set forth the power of the government, and banning speech is not one of the powers granted to the US government. In fact, it is explicitly forbidden.

Laws that violate the constitution are not valid laws. We have a special word for them: "unconstitutional". smiley

But, but, but, but...

No. Read the first amendment. Wink

But, but, but, but...

The first amendment. Wink

Jury nullification is NOT open for abuse like you make it out to be.

But, if you can explain just how a finding of "not guilty" can benefit the prosecution, well, I'll be damn impressed! Grin

As for the issue of jury selection... c'mon... Really?

The prosecution gets an UNLIMITED number of dismissals. The defense has a limited number. Jury selection is (INFINITELY) HEAVILY weighted in favour of the prosecution already, so trying to confuse the issue of jury nullification with jury selection just doesn't hold water. The prosecution already has an INFINITE advantage there. What more do they need? Infinity + 1? An infinite set of infinities? C'mon... We both know that Cantor's Theorem doesn't apply here. Wink

This case was a joke from the start.



114  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Digg still exists, and they're hiring :P on: February 04, 2015, 10:01:26 PM
Really.

http://digg.com/jobs

For realz. Grin

And "bankruptcy lawyer/accountant" isn't on the job list! tongue
115  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 04, 2015, 09:07:11 PM
Ulbricht's lawyer was desperate. The judge wouldn't let them have any defence at all. He took what was left after the judge explicitly banned him from using several other defences.

That was no less a show trial than any you'd expect in North Korea.

Being overly kind, this:



The kangaroo also banned any mention of jury nullification.
116  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Silk Road Seized - Dread Pirate Roberts Arrested on: February 04, 2015, 07:12:43 PM
Verdict: Guilty.  Cry

So, if anyone does anything on your web site that is illegal, you can go to prison for it. Nice.

Insert freedom:

[attachimg=#]
117  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 04, 2015, 06:21:49 PM
You can teach a man to fish...

[attachthumb=#]
118  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Show us a picture of your.. CAR!!! on: February 04, 2015, 02:59:19 AM
The Elio looks pretty slick. I don't think I'd get one as a primary/commuter car, but that's because of weather concerns - I'm not really sold on a car that small performing well enough during Canadian winters.
119  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Recommend some music videos to me! on: February 04, 2015, 02:42:59 AM
Perhaps interesting for some:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0</a>



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk</a>

I saw that at a bar during a layover in KL. I wasn't sure if it was some kind of retro or old song that I missed or whether it was new. I only listen to news radio in the car, and we don't have a TV. For some reason it reminded me of something from a long time ago. My first thought was "Baby Got Back" for visuals, but not sure.
120  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 03, 2015, 08:12:56 AM
Not silly, but seriously twisted & sick humour...


121  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Internet of Things thread (IoT) on: February 03, 2015, 05:19:15 AM
I suppose that it's about time to start this thread. We can all see it coming anyways.

http://www.huffingtonpost...ome-gadget_b_6567044.html

Quote
The Useless Home Gadgets That Tell Us Not to Think For Ourselves

X-ray specs, Sea Monkeys, Crypto-rings, Whoopee Cushions, Black Eye Telescopes. I loved the comic ads that were used to entice children to part with their pocket money back in the day. They were fun, they were gimmicks, and most importantly, they were cheap and throw away. These days we have the equivalent in a much more adult form in the shape of consumer goods that are billed as wearables or the Internet of Things (or 'Everything' as some people like to say to evoke epic visions of the world seamlessly interconnected).

Well, it seems like the Internet of Things is really gaining momentum thanks to the simple things for the home like Nest Thermostats and Smoke Detectors and the suchlike. It's not just going to be a fad, it will be HUGE. Intel estimates over 200 billion connected devices by 2020 and this will usher in some real uses that aid us in healthcare, business, retail security and transportation.

That's all worth waiting for but right now we have many manufacturers creating gimmicky, nonsensical and seemingly useless gadgets, that are connected to our smartphones and tablets, and portrayed as helping our lives.

More at the link.

It's mostly a rant about crappy gadgets, but the author seems to miss what IoT is about, or perhaps he's just romanticising it as some sort of techno-wonder to solve all our problems. I think he'll be surprised when it happens (and not pleasantly so), and realises what it really is.
122  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Interview with John McAfee on: February 01, 2015, 09:58:49 PM
The techno-wildman is interviewed by Jeff Berwick.

John tells some of the story of how he escaped from Belize, and talks about privacy.

(NSFW language)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_fr2p7054" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3_fr2p7054</a>

123  Other Software / Developer's Corner / Re: Would appreciate some feedback on my new logos on: January 31, 2015, 05:45:53 PM
I like #2 best, but #3 is darn close.
124  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Who gets sued next? VLC media player? Mozilla? on: January 31, 2015, 05:21:11 AM
Blog software also has one purpose, but it is not crime related (at least assuming we have freedom of expression).

My guess is that in a few years that will ironically be some kind of unintentionally twisted prescience. smiley

Really.

The utter insanity is so bad, that there's a reddit called /r/nottheonion. They're all "The Onion" articles, but real.
125  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins? on: January 30, 2015, 09:05:39 PM
^Yes. But on a certain meta-level, isn't claiming ownership of property - in any way, shape, or form - a specie of theft? tongue

Not in the least. Well, unless you're a communist. And we all know just how awesome communism ends. Wink

About as awesomely as Libertarianism and "Free Market" economics keeps misfiring AFAICT. tongue Wink

I'm not sure where you're getting that. We don't have a free market now. Sure, it's in some way similar, but it's still far from free.

Right now we have governments using Keynesian economics policies, which means creating debt, which bears interest, which compounds, and never gets paid off. Debt slavery ring any bells? smiley

So, to right the wrongs, central banks double-down on this failing strategy and being printing more money (QE). Bond interest rates drop to near zero, so investors and savers look for other places to put their money -- housing, real estate, stocks -- and lo and behold, what do we have? Bubbles in the real estate, housing, and stock markets.

The artificial creation of interest rates by central banks creates malinvestment and bubbles. On the other hand, interest rates that float with the market don't create that sort of crisis waiting to happen.

For the last financial crisis, the only economists that predicted it were Austrian economists.

We'll see if their predictions bear out this time though. Given the price of oil, the drop in copper prices, and pressure on commodities, it looks like cash will be king in the next year or so.

Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 413 Next
DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.068s | Server load: 0.21 ]