Who's "dividing"? I asked a legitimate question. Your assumption that I was trying to "divide" is actually dividing.
Would you have said the same thing if I had said it was a Republican rather than a Democrat? I am curious.
My point was simply that a Democrat was blatantly pandering to corporate money. That might not be "fascism" in a genuine technical sense, but it is pretty close to the popular sense and the modern version of what is often called fascism.
And "be polite", my ass. I have already emailed and otherwise notified both the FCC and my erstwhile representatives in Congress, and told them what I think of Wheeler's idea. I was blunt and to the point. Politeness is not appropriate when regulators are guilty of such blatant bullshit.
But just for the record: no, I did not accuse him of being a "fascist" in those communications, because it's not technically accurate. Read my original comment again. I wrote that he was "acting like" one.
You honestly read the grandparent and don't believe they weren't stereotyping? The fact that the grandparent was moderated to "funny" is a separate, disturbing fact in and of itself.
Yes, I honestly read GP and I don't see any "stereotyping".
I have honestly read your comment, and I do see stereotyping.
Since when is "you know who I mean" a racist comment? In my opinion, assuming it was racist is both racist and paranoid.
Skipjack was a good cipher. Key escrow was the problem.
Skipjack was not known to be compromised. That is true. But key escrow was a REAL problem. The whole thing was just plain a bad idea that would have enabled government spying and intrusion, and NIST knew that. (It's not enough to say there were "inadequate controls" on the keys. When government is involved there are never enough controls.)
None of this has much to do with my original point. Government was trying to get a foothold on your communications, and NIST was determined to allow it.
Can we safely assume he has been bought and the others have been made promises regarding other issues they care about? The only thing I can hope for at this point is that these older, technology illiterate politicians will die off as younger people come in and change things for the better because they understand what's going on. I seriously doubt this though.
Um... I think you need to check your facts. You seem to think he's doing this out of ignorance.
Wheeler is hardly "technology illiterate". He was a lobbyist for cable companies! What he was trying to do was 100% intentional and deliberate.
The old saying goes, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." But if you knew the whole story, you would know that stupidity does not adequately explain Wheeler's actions. It is malice, through and through.
No we don't. We're going to need more info to see if you're referencing associates of yours, or are maybe some kind of racist, since the ignorant conservatives use "thug" as code for black people, and we don't know if you're one of those awful people.
I have never in my life heard the word "thugs" used as a "code for black people". That's the honest truth.
I have, however, heard people who call themselves "progressives" use the term as a code for conservatives. That's also just the honest truth.
Disclaimer: I am not a "conservative," so don't waste everybody's time by going there.
Stung by concerns that the NSA may have introduced deliberately weakened crypto algorithms, NIST is embarking on a review of its existing standards and developments.
Give me a break. NIST was solidly behind Skipjack and the Clipper Chip in the early 90s, an deliberately went ahead with approval even though during the public comment period, they received approximately 80,000 negative comments, and exactly 3 positive comments.
The very idea that they were "stung by the revelation" that NSA might have been behind subverting crypto is blatant BS. They have been the primary avenue for pushing this crap off onto the public.
Computer Science and Programming Job are often related, but also often not. And Computer Science and IT often don't even very much resemble one another. And I've done all 3.
Is "guinea pig" in Federal employment contracts, now?
I sure hope so.
On a side note: now, when Congress refuses to declare war but stands by while the President sends troops overseas, it is the sons and daughters of Congress members who must go first.
IEEE1394 has generic transport, and you've always been able to use it. You're just mistaken.
I am not "mistaken". Firewire was intended to be a replacement for SCSI. While it includes the ability to transfer generic data, it was not -- I repeat: not -- designed from the beginning to be primarily a general-purpose data transfer. It was deliberately optimized to be a SCSI replacement and to carry video.
Yes, it is capable of doing those other things, but the primary aim of the design was specific, not generic. The "generic" capabilities might be adequate or even well done; but that was not the main design goal.
It is the "specific" part that caused (causes) it to be more expensive than USB.
USB won because it was less expensive, which permitted it to be more generic. We could have had firewire everything down to keyboards, but that would have cost us a lot.
But my point was that USB was designed to be generic, from the start, while 1394 wasn't. Thunderbolt also was not designed to be generic, but rather to carry the specific standards that Intel was already putting in its chips and boards.
It's usually easier to take something generic and adapt it to specific uses than to take something designed for specific uses and make it generic.
Topological addressing is only a security concern if you have such an asinine authentication design that you consider a network address as a credential.
Unfortunately, much of the internet does consider it a credential, regardless of whether that is fallacious thinking.
The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched.
That may be true, but you also think it's just coincidental that it's also the local minimum? Really? Nobody chooses it just because it's convenient and helps "prove" their point?
Really?
The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
You think so? I've looked at them, and I disagree. I don't usually say this, but [citation needed].
Amazing! You show that I, and apparently somebody else, said several years ago (more than 6 years in one case) that it seemed to be getting warmer?
And your point is... what? That new evidence does not arise? That people might not conclude something else when they see more of the existing evidence? That the scientific method means something other than forming your opinion based on the evidence you know, rather than on the point you are trying to prove?
Just what point are you trying to make here? Because I do not see any. It seems to me that more than anything else, you are simply illustrating how I have, over time, become educated about your particular brand of bullshit.
Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
And I can chart (or quote others who have charted) the entire HCN record from pre-1900, and show where this one person is claiming something that the U.S. government's own records don't support.
I could cherry-pick data too, if I wanted to. But I am far past done bothering with yours. You have shown yourself, in more than one dimension, to be not worth answering. Even your citations recently have not been worth my time.
Even where you do not attempt to distort my own arguments, or make straw-man arguments of your own, in my experience your "evidence" has been cherry-picked and based on thin evidence.
I will state this clearly and up-front: this is not a matter of ad-hominem. Even where you have made valid arguments you have generally managed to do it in a manner that has been gratuitously rude. And more, but I won't get into that.
So I say this openly and without prejudice: you have quite literally given me cause to say you aren't worth my time. Except to continue to record what you say, because it has still managed to be worth noting, if for no other reason than my personal records.
I don't need to see cherry picked reports from you. I see them from the original sources already, and I will form my own conclusions as to their bias or lack of.
Using firewire for external hard drives and other tech came long after firewire/i.link was added to video cameras.
This was the problem with Firewire. It has lots of technical things going for it, but unlike USB it was not actually designed to be general-purpose. Neither was Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt was designed to support the specific protocols that Intel was building into its chips and boards.
I figured that all along. It took off on Apple hardware, with almost no pickup on normal PCs. That has finally started to happen a little - some upper end motherboards have 1 or 2 Thunderbolt ports now, and Asus has an add-on board for a few others - but it is really a niche thanks to its odd hardware requirements and lack of early adoption outside of Apple.
The real problem with Thunderbolt is that it is niche as designed, while USB is a general-purpose interface.
Thunderbolt is a slower-speed (because copper) variant of Intel's "lightning" interface... which has lots of potential because it's optical. I think doing it first over copper was a rational stepping-stone to fiber, but the problem is that it doesn't seem to be general-purpose. Instead it was made as a carrier for faster version of existing standards: PCI and Display Port. This is a big limitation.
USB, on the other hand, beat out the (in some ways) technically superior Firewire for (I think) the very reason that it was less specific, more generic.
To be really honest, I am mystified by the lack of a universal optical interlink by now. I mean, USB over fiber, or something like it. Hell, TOSlink has been around for a long time now. It works. It isn't terribly fragile. I mean, you don't want to try to wad up your cable in your pocket, but otherwise no big deal.
Intel's Lightning might have been it, but again I think it was too specific. Something a lot closer to just "moving bits over cable" is what is needed, IMO.
Anytime anyone cites 1998 you know they are willfully ignorant. Picking a local maxima as a starting point for measurement may fool the average guy on the street but anyone on slashdot who believes it is meaningful is making a deliberate choice to lie. In your case, the fact that your very next sentence is railing against exactly that kind of deception beggars belief. That level of arrogance deserves a gold medal, so no surprise that the captcha here is "medals.,"
Cool! So when people measure from the local MINIMUM, like say 1979, their data is equally questionable?
Yes or no? You can't have it both ways.
If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.
In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?
Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then?
I have.
Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.
I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to authority".
Thanks for stepping in. You may have better luck with this person than I, because this person has some kind of obsession with me that is quite thoroughly documented and decidedly beyond what most people would call normal.
Even if that were not so, I have ceased arguing with him because he has an (again documented) not just penchant for making but seeming dogged determination to make straw-man and appeal-to-authority arguments against his custom distortions of my own arguments.
Anyway: best of luck. I've beat my head against brick walls that were friendlier and more logical.
Slashdot Mirror
you seem to be making a distinction between a democrats and republicans. Answer: there is none.
I stated no such thing. You are reading more into my comment than what I actually wrote. It is quite rude to make such assumptions.
Jane do not divide.
Who's "dividing"? I asked a legitimate question. Your assumption that I was trying to "divide" is actually dividing.
Would you have said the same thing if I had said it was a Republican rather than a Democrat? I am curious.
My point was simply that a Democrat was blatantly pandering to corporate money. That might not be "fascism" in a genuine technical sense, but it is pretty close to the popular sense and the modern version of what is often called fascism.
And "be polite", my ass. I have already emailed and otherwise notified both the FCC and my erstwhile representatives in Congress, and told them what I think of Wheeler's idea. I was blunt and to the point. Politeness is not appropriate when regulators are guilty of such blatant bullshit.
But just for the record: no, I did not accuse him of being a "fascist" in those communications, because it's not technically accurate. Read my original comment again. I wrote that he was "acting like" one.
You honestly read the grandparent and don't believe they weren't stereotyping? The fact that the grandparent was moderated to "funny" is a separate, disturbing fact in and of itself.
Yes, I honestly read GP and I don't see any "stereotyping".
I have honestly read your comment, and I do see stereotyping.
Since when is "you know who I mean" a racist comment? In my opinion, assuming it was racist is both racist and paranoid.
But that's just my opinion.
Skipjack was a good cipher. Key escrow was the problem.
Skipjack was not known to be compromised. That is true. But key escrow was a REAL problem. The whole thing was just plain a bad idea that would have enabled government spying and intrusion, and NIST knew that. (It's not enough to say there were "inadequate controls" on the keys. When government is involved there are never enough controls.)
None of this has much to do with my original point. Government was trying to get a foothold on your communications, and NIST was determined to allow it.
Can we safely assume he has been bought and the others have been made promises regarding other issues they care about? The only thing I can hope for at this point is that these older, technology illiterate politicians will die off as younger people come in and change things for the better because they understand what's going on. I seriously doubt this though.
Um... I think you need to check your facts. You seem to think he's doing this out of ignorance.
Wheeler is hardly "technology illiterate". He was a lobbyist for cable companies! What he was trying to do was 100% intentional and deliberate.
The old saying goes, "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." But if you knew the whole story, you would know that stupidity does not adequately explain Wheeler's actions. It is malice, through and through.
To me, the real question is: why is this self-described (and, to be sure, described by others as) Democrat acting so much like a fascist?
No we don't. We're going to need more info to see if you're referencing associates of yours, or are maybe some kind of racist, since the ignorant conservatives use "thug" as code for black people, and we don't know if you're one of those awful people.
I have never in my life heard the word "thugs" used as a "code for black people". That's the honest truth.
I have, however, heard people who call themselves "progressives" use the term as a code for conservatives. That's also just the honest truth.
Disclaimer: I am not a "conservative," so don't waste everybody's time by going there.
Stung by concerns that the NSA may have introduced deliberately weakened crypto algorithms, NIST is embarking on a review of its existing standards and developments.
Give me a break. NIST was solidly behind Skipjack and the Clipper Chip in the early 90s, an deliberately went ahead with approval even though during the public comment period, they received approximately 80,000 negative comments, and exactly 3 positive comments.
The very idea that they were "stung by the revelation" that NSA might have been behind subverting crypto is blatant BS. They have been the primary avenue for pushing this crap off onto the public.
This is very similar to what I was going to say.
Computer Science and Programming Job are often related, but also often not. And Computer Science and IT often don't even very much resemble one another. And I've done all 3.
Is "guinea pig" in Federal employment contracts, now?
I sure hope so.
On a side note: now, when Congress refuses to declare war but stands by while the President sends troops overseas, it is the sons and daughters of Congress members who must go first.
Hey, I kind of like this idea.
IEEE1394 has generic transport, and you've always been able to use it. You're just mistaken.
I am not "mistaken". Firewire was intended to be a replacement for SCSI. While it includes the ability to transfer generic data, it was not -- I repeat: not -- designed from the beginning to be primarily a general-purpose data transfer. It was deliberately optimized to be a SCSI replacement and to carry video.
Yes, it is capable of doing those other things, but the primary aim of the design was specific, not generic. The "generic" capabilities might be adequate or even well done; but that was not the main design goal.
It is the "specific" part that caused (causes) it to be more expensive than USB.
USB won because it was less expensive, which permitted it to be more generic. We could have had firewire everything down to keyboards, but that would have cost us a lot.
But my point was that USB was designed to be generic, from the start, while 1394 wasn't. Thunderbolt also was not designed to be generic, but rather to carry the specific standards that Intel was already putting in its chips and boards.
It's usually easier to take something generic and adapt it to specific uses than to take something designed for specific uses and make it generic.
Topological addressing is only a security concern if you have such an asinine authentication design that you consider a network address as a credential.
Unfortunately, much of the internet does consider it a credential, regardless of whether that is fallacious thinking.
*LightPeak
Thank you. My mistake, and I am properly corrected.
The reason 1979 gets used a lot is because that's when the satellite era of geophysical measurement really got launched.
That may be true, but you also think it's just coincidental that it's also the local minimum? Really? Nobody chooses it just because it's convenient and helps "prove" their point?
Really?
The ground based records goes back to the mid to late 1800's and it's basically been warming since the start (and before) of those ground based temperature records.
You think so? I've looked at them, and I disagree. I don't usually say this, but [citation needed].
Amazing! You show that I, and apparently somebody else, said several years ago (more than 6 years in one case) that it seemed to be getting warmer?
And your point is... what? That new evidence does not arise? That people might not conclude something else when they see more of the existing evidence? That the scientific method means something other than forming your opinion based on the evidence you know, rather than on the point you are trying to prove?
Just what point are you trying to make here? Because I do not see any. It seems to me that more than anything else, you are simply illustrating how I have, over time, become educated about your particular brand of bullshit.
Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
And I can chart (or quote others who have charted) the entire HCN record from pre-1900, and show where this one person is claiming something that the U.S. government's own records don't support.
I could cherry-pick data too, if I wanted to. But I am far past done bothering with yours. You have shown yourself, in more than one dimension, to be not worth answering. Even your citations recently have not been worth my time.
Even where you do not attempt to distort my own arguments, or make straw-man arguments of your own, in my experience your "evidence" has been cherry-picked and based on thin evidence.
I will state this clearly and up-front: this is not a matter of ad-hominem. Even where you have made valid arguments you have generally managed to do it in a manner that has been gratuitously rude. And more, but I won't get into that.
So I say this openly and without prejudice: you have quite literally given me cause to say you aren't worth my time. Except to continue to record what you say, because it has still managed to be worth noting, if for no other reason than my personal records.
I don't need to see cherry picked reports from you. I see them from the original sources already, and I will form my own conclusions as to their bias or lack of.
Have a nice day.
You need some serious work on your logical fallacies.
Just sayin'
Friendly advice. You can take it or not; your choice.
Using firewire for external hard drives and other tech came long after firewire/i.link was added to video cameras.
This was the problem with Firewire. It has lots of technical things going for it, but unlike USB it was not actually designed to be general-purpose. Neither was Thunderbolt. Thunderbolt was designed to support the specific protocols that Intel was building into its chips and boards.
I figured that all along. It took off on Apple hardware, with almost no pickup on normal PCs. That has finally started to happen a little - some upper end motherboards have 1 or 2 Thunderbolt ports now, and Asus has an add-on board for a few others - but it is really a niche thanks to its odd hardware requirements and lack of early adoption outside of Apple.
The real problem with Thunderbolt is that it is niche as designed, while USB is a general-purpose interface.
Thunderbolt is a slower-speed (because copper) variant of Intel's "lightning" interface... which has lots of potential because it's optical. I think doing it first over copper was a rational stepping-stone to fiber, but the problem is that it doesn't seem to be general-purpose. Instead it was made as a carrier for faster version of existing standards: PCI and Display Port. This is a big limitation.
USB, on the other hand, beat out the (in some ways) technically superior Firewire for (I think) the very reason that it was less specific, more generic.
To be really honest, I am mystified by the lack of a universal optical interlink by now. I mean, USB over fiber, or something like it. Hell, TOSlink has been around for a long time now. It works. It isn't terribly fragile. I mean, you don't want to try to wad up your cable in your pocket, but otherwise no big deal.
Intel's Lightning might have been it, but again I think it was too specific. Something a lot closer to just "moving bits over cable" is what is needed, IMO.
Yes, the epitome of "no true Scotsman".
You're honestly trying to say that my claim handguns are not like pacemakers is a "No True Scotsman" argument?
REALLY?
Honestly, I don't have a response. I'm too busy ROTFL.
Okay. But that's a "perception" argument, not one of physics.
Anytime anyone cites 1998 you know they are willfully ignorant. Picking a local maxima as a starting point for measurement may fool the average guy on the street but anyone on slashdot who believes it is meaningful is making a deliberate choice to lie. In your case, the fact that your very next sentence is railing against exactly that kind of deception beggars belief. That level of arrogance deserves a gold medal, so no surprise that the captcha here is "medals.,"
Cool! So when people measure from the local MINIMUM, like say 1979, their data is equally questionable?
Yes or no? You can't have it both ways.
If you want to go beyond the local maximum AND the local minimum, you will still see we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly.
In our world of instant gratification 15-17 years seems like forever, especially to the younger ones. But the classical climatological period is defined as 30 years by the World Meteorological Organization for a reason. It's long enough for the decadal and shorter cycles to average out.
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?
Seriously? You haven't noticed that nearly all the warming "evidence" seems to start around 1979? Have you looked at the actual historical temperature and climate records before then?
I have.
Be careful when you lecture about "long term trends", lest you end up not looking so smart.
I guess your posting meets the criteria for "scientific proof by vigorous assertion and appeal to authority".
Thanks for stepping in. You may have better luck with this person than I, because this person has some kind of obsession with me that is quite thoroughly documented and decidedly beyond what most people would call normal.
Even if that were not so, I have ceased arguing with him because he has an (again documented) not just penchant for making but seeming dogged determination to make straw-man and appeal-to-authority arguments against his custom distortions of my own arguments.
Anyway: best of luck. I've beat my head against brick walls that were friendlier and more logical.