Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LetterRip

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

Correction on my behalf.  What actually happened is that he didn't even know it was Beto.  The members of the cDc wouldn't inform him of who it was until he agreed to the condition (they only told the reporter - who was writing a book about cDc, that a current politician was a former member).  He had only vague information prior to that and didn't know it was Beto.  So he traded for a delay of a story that wouldn't be about Beto (essentially a non-story since without knowing who the politician was it was pointless), in exchange for learning it was Beto, but delaying the story.

The Reuters reporter hid it. He had an agreement with Beto to do so.

No hiding took place, he wanted a comment from Beto and Beto said he wouldn't provide a comment till a later date, which delayed the story.

As for teenage behavior, you should review recent events to understand why it's important. Your rules, amigo.

Rape and attempted rape are extremely serious behaviors.  Also it isn't "my rules" - it is the general view of society as a whole.

Going over $1,500 when stealing phone service was a felony. People were, in fact, arrested for it and charged.

There is no evidence that he went over 1,500$.  Also it was generally only charged against organized crime and as part of other more serious charges.

The source is the Reuters reporter and a basic understanding of human nature

Wrong on both counts, the Reuters article didn't at all say what you seem to think it said.

What you don't know about the 1980's and 1990's hacker scene is that long distance was a service you had to pay for in that era.

I did in fact know that.

And, this may shock you, many times the BBS you accessed was in another city or even another state.

Not shocked or even unaware.  However cDc was local for Beto so his activity likely didn't involve a lot of long distance.

I was around for the 1980's and 1990's computer scene, got my computer engineering degree around that time. I have probably forgotten more about that hacking era than you'll ever know but, by all means kid, tell me what it was like.

And yet you seemed blissfully unaware of phreaking.  So perhaps you have indeed forgotten more about that hacking era, but apparently you seem to have forgotten rather nearly everything.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

And stealing phone service.

Yep, it was entirely wrong of him to do.  So is distributing mix tapes.  Also "fair use" is an affirmative defense - it has to be litigated each time and only then can you assert fair use and determined non-infringing.

Oh, well, everyone was doing it. Why didn't you say that right up front? Everyone was doing it, that kind of makes it perfectly legal right? You really should stop with the logical fallacy thing.

I really thought you were smart enough to understand the reasoning, sorry for over estimating you.  I didn't assert it was legal.  I was pointing out that we as a society have legislated certain behaviors to be illegal, but certain subsets of illegal behavior, when engaged in by youths and young adults are fairly normative - and thus not indicative of a lack of morals latter in life.

Generally these behaviors are crimes that we considered 'victimless' (drinking, experimenting with drugs) or where the victim is a corporation and the crime doesn't deprive the corporation of goods, but rather denies them profits on goods or services with little or no marginal cost (such as copyright violation, or service violations such as sharing logins to netflix) - and where the actual losses are largely imaginary or grossly exaggerated.

From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Has anyone you known ever consumed alcohol underage (perhaps even yourself?)?  Have all of those individuals turned out to be hardened criminals?  If not, can you perhaps see the flaw in your reasoning?  (Ok, that was a rhetorical question - you are incapable of seeing any flaws in your reasoning - but I think the flaw is obvious to other readers).

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Again, reasoning skills of a two year old.  Kavanaugh was credibly accused of attempted rape, and in my opinion obviously perjured himself regarding his drinking as a teen and young adult.  The concern was over the credible accusation of attempted rape and his current and past purjury, the alcohol was what he was perjuring himself over.

Beto's illegal behavior continued into his late 20's.

Source?  I don't think there is any source anywhere that claims that.

Before you hang your hat on mixtapes, you might read up on something called "fair use".

I'm familiar with fair use.  I'm also aware that the vast majority of mix tapes (especially when distributed to friends) are not in fact fair use.

When you supported a serial rapist for president, you lost the moral high ground on fake accusations of rape.

I didn't support Trump for President (oh that isn't who you meant by serial rapist?).  If you meant Clinton, I didn't support him for President either although there were no such accusations by his alleged victims against him at the time he was running.  Also there is no evidence Clinton is a serial rapist.  There is one plausible accusation with serious credibility issues that he is a rapist.  I can perfectly understand those who find it credible, but also find it perfectly understandable for those who don't find it credible - it is an issue about which reasonable people can legitimately disagree on the interpretation of the evidence in terms of finding it credible.

"Appears" to have engaged in perjury, what a load.

Yes 'appears' is a dramatic understatement, Kavanaugh by any reasonable standard has perjured himself in my opinion, but I have a tendency to use hedge words when referring to behavior regarding criminal conduct.

I won't comment on you trying to read crunch's mind, but really? The beer drinking was hammered pillar to post. It literally came up 96 times during the hearings. Why would it be such a focus if there was no "outrage" associated with it?

Because he had perjured himself.  The questions were to establish his perjury.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 18, 2019, 01:11:37 AM »
I meant giving copies of mix tapes to friends, although it was quite common just to straight copy tapes as well.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 17, 2019, 10:49:34 PM »
And during the time that Beto was active you could install software that would do blue boxing, so you didn't even require soldering skills.

Blue boxing hit the mainstream media when an article by Ron Rosenbaum titled Secrets of the Little Blue Box was published in the October 1971 issue of Esquire magazine.[4] Suddenly, many more people wanted to get into the phone phreaking culture spawned by the blue box, and it furthered the fame of Captain Crunch. Two major amateur radio magazines ('73' and "CQ') published articles on the telephone system in the mid-1970s. CQ Magazine published details on phone phreaking, including the tone frequencies and several working blue box schematics in 1974.[citation needed] The June 1975 issue of '73' featured an article describing the rudiments of the long distance signaling network, how to construct red and blue boxes, and put them into operation.[7]

In November 1988, the CCITT (now known as ITU-T) published recommendation Q.140, which goes over Signaling System No. 5's international functions, once again giving away the 'secret' frequencies of the system. This caused a resurgence of blue boxing incidents with a new generation.[citation needed]

During the early 1990s, blue boxing became popular with the international warez scene, especially in Europe. Software was made to facilitate blue boxing using a computer to generate the signalling tones and play them into the phone. For the PC there were BlueBEEP, TLO, and others, and blue boxes for other platforms such as Amiga were available as well.

Also regarding your amount for it to be a felony, - I seriously doubt that the laws are written such that independent events over a multiyear span would be cumulative.  So he almost certainly didn't engage in a felony with his phreaking.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 17, 2019, 10:27:13 PM »
He has confirmed his membership until he left for university. It’s likely he remained involved as an 18 year old adult. Your attempt to minimize this is largely deceptive.  If it’s no big deal, why hide it until after the election?

No one "hid" it.  Peoples behavior as teenagers is largely immaterial to their behavior as adults unless they engage in a serious criminal activity such as rape.

During his time as a member, he has admitted to stealing phone service. At $1,500, that becomes a felony.

He was engaged in 'phone phreaking' almost certainly did so via devices similar to the boxes that WoZ and Jobs were selling.  (Of course technically inclined individuals could make their own with a few dollars spent at radioshack and a soldering iron.  Or you could use a whistle from a box of Captain Crunch cereal (which is how one 'hacker' derived his nickname of Captain Crunch).)

It was something that the majority of teens seriously interested in computers at the time did.  It was not treated as a felony by law enforcement at the time he was involved.

Many/most members funded their efforts by other illegal means  and Beto does not address that although it seems highly likely he was doing what all the other members were doing. He doesn’t deny it for fear it will finally come out and he’ll be caught in the lie.

I'm curious what your source is for this - you seem completely technically illiterate (about the level of my parents) and I'd be shocked if you had any knowledge of the 1980's "hacker" scene.  To my knowledge you are entirely incorrect.  What "funding" do you think was required?  To be involved required a computer and access to a BBS.  Most of those involved in the 'scene' had a family computer or were using there computer access at a university.

Also his involvement was writing and chatting there haven't been any reports that his involvement went beyond that.

So why is it relevant? It establishes that from a very young age Beto has repeatedly engaged in illegal behavior.

Most US children coming of age after the advent of computers have engaged repeatedly in illegal behavior involving computers (have you heard of Napster, LimeWire, BitTorrent?).  I didn't when I was in college, but I was an extreme anomaly - most teens and college students saw nothing wrong with 'file sharing' when they couldn't afford to buy music, movies, etc.  One of the most god fearing individuals I know had copied nearly every piece of software in existence for the mac back in the 1980's.

People - including police and universities - didn't really see computer crimes as crimes back then unless they were engaging in malicious behavior.

From an early teen to late 20’s, Beto has a habit of thinking the laws that govern you don’t apply to him. Now we’re supposed to think he’s no longer of such a mindset because... reasons!

Actually, we know why. It’s because he’s a Democrat. Kavanaugh drank beer as a teen and it was an outrage. Beto engages repeatedly in illegal behavior and no big deal.

Mixtapes were illegal yet I'd bet you most Senators and Congressmen from the time the technology was available engaged in making them as teens and young adults.  It was simply something that was part of the culture of the time that children and young adults gave zero thought about and doesn't at all reflect their views with respect to laws, and no rational person would infer it would significantly influence their behavior 20, 30 or 40 years later.  Similarly the vast majority of teens and young adults have engaged in underage drinking and pot usage - again we don't think that it gives us insight into their behavior as an adult.

Regarding Kavanagauh - the only interest was to the extent that 1) he is alleged to have attempted rape 2) he appears to have engaged in purgery regarding his youthful behavior.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: March 17, 2019, 12:46:08 PM »
cDc "cult of the dead cow" - is a "hackivist" group, from the time of BBSes (Bulletin Board Systems).    It wasn't a cult at all.

A 'hacktivist' is someone who does 'hacking' as a form of activism.  Beto did some writing for them "back in the day" when he was still a teenager.

I'm not sure why anyone think it is particularly relevant these days given he was a member prior to adulthood (15 years old or thereabouts).  At that time their 'goal' was to fight the actual cult of Scientology and chinese censorship.

WoZ and Steve Jobs did phone phreaking gear as young adults.

General Comments / Re: Why is May still around?
« on: March 05, 2019, 01:09:38 PM »
Is Brexit still worth it? was it ever worth it?

I was never sure if Brexit was a economic or emotional choice.

It was both.  A subset believed the lies that the Brexit political proponents were saying - that there would be huge windfalls for the NHS, massive budget increases for UK science, more opportunities for job seekers, etc.

A subset were doing protest votes.

General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« on: February 25, 2019, 11:20:28 PM »
What the...

Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

That makes perfect sense to me if we assume he was a psychopath. He figured that a staged attack would increase his publicity and thus revitalize his career, which he could then leverage to better pay.

Thankfully he was thwarted in his plan by police investigators.

So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.

I loved Trevor Noah's take on this,

Noah then brought up the fact that Smollett is said to have paid the two men with a check.

"What, did he also write, 'fake hate crime' in the memo?" the host quipped. "Even amateurs know, if you commit a crime, you go all cash, people! No paper trail."

Later in the clip, Noah talked about how Chicago Police claim that Smollett wanted the crime to be caught on camera, "but that didn't go right either," noted the host, as the actual crime wasn't caught on rotating security cameras — only the activity beforehand.

"You've got to be *censored*ting me," said Noah. "He wanted to be caught but he didn't get caught on camera because he didn't know which way the camera was pointing? You're an actor, that's your job!"

Toward the end, Noah pointed out how the thought processes have changed in this case.

"When this started out, it was a story about people who hated Jussie Smollett because he was black and gay," said Noah. But now, people hate him because he's an *censored*. In other words, they're judging him on the content of his character. And that, my friends, is progress."

General Comments / Re: Stupid Lies - Other than Trump
« on: February 13, 2019, 05:06:56 PM »
That's very charitable of you, it may even be true, however, it's not the standard that ever applies the other way.

I'm fairly universal in this standard.  I almost never call anything a lie that could be a legitimate trick of memory and have frequently called out others calling things "lies" that probably aren't.

Do you agree, that it's also very common for politicians to tell stories that they think make them more relatable to their audience without being overly concerned whether they actually happened to them?

This isn't universal, but certainly happens.

I can't for one second imagine that I could give an honest answer to a question about the music I listened to at any party in college (other than one but only because I remember the name of the band).  But I wouldn't feel compelled to put a name on them either.  So why did she?  Because it sold a story that she wanted to tell.

So you appear to have not listened to the interview and taken your sources at face value - and I wrongfully assumed they were accurately reporting what happened. I should have checked your source, which I just did. 

The smoking dope and listening to music were two separate questions.  She was being asked about her music tastes by a DJ.

Charlamagne tha God, one of the show’s hosts, asked Ms. Harris if she had ever smoked marijuana herself — a question presidential candidates have long been loath to answer. Ms. Harris confidently said she had, adding, “and I did inhale.”

“It was a long time ago,” Ms. Harris said, laughing.

Later in the interview, Ms. Harris was asked about her taste in music. She has previously named California artists like Tupac and Snoop Dogg among her favorites.

“What does Kamala Harris listen to?” asked D.J. Envy, another one of the show’s hosts.

Before Ms. Harris answered the question, Charlamagne tha God interjected, asking her to say what she listened to while she smoked in college. Everyone laughed, before D.J. Envy appeared to return to his original question.

“Was it Snoop?” he asked.

“Oh yeah, definitely Snoop,” Ms. Harris said. “Tupac for sure.”

Chaos ensued. The viral tweet pointed out that Snoop Dogg and Tupac did not debut until Ms. Harris had left college. Then music blogs and conservative outlets begin to write up the exchange. However, several of them omitted the fact that D.J. Envy had asked Ms. Harris more generally about her music opinions, a key portion in the exchange that makes it unclear whose question Ms. Harris was responding to.

General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal
« on: February 13, 2019, 04:31:24 PM »
It's enough of a barrier though that where we have walls today, people choose to go around them adding hours to their travel time (sometimes days) and often being forced to cross in dangerous desert conditions and to hire people who themselves may be dangerous.

Ah, ok this explains your reasoning.  You've heard that people are crossing in the desert, and thus assuming it was because of walls, etc. at other locations making the crossing more difficult at those locations, and thus deterring people from those crossings and diverting them to the desert.  Therefore by putting walls up in the desert they will have a similar effect and thus reduce total immigration.  A reasonable assumption given your knowledge.

Why do you think they choose to risk their lives in such a manner rather than simply take 15 minutes to scale the wall with a ladder?  It's not because they are trying to escape custody - many of the people who cross the desert border simply wait for agents to pick them up.  Just as possible if you scale the wall.  If you can't answer that question it already tells me you're not making a serious argument about whether a wall works or not.  If your claim about "15 minutes" is believable than every single desert crosser should be putting your thinking in question.

The cartels control most of the Mexican border and charge a crossing fee if you try and cross at any location that is under their control.  This is on top of the fee charged by smugglers.  The cartels have extremely tight control of all places it is fairly easy to cross, but don't over the desert.  So human traffickers looking to save significant money choose the more dangerous and difficult route.

Why against all evidence, and logic, and the deliberate choices of the people trying to cross that border, do you seem to think that walls don't work?

Hopefully you now understand where your reasoning led you astray, you were simply missing a rather critical piece of information that lead to a wrongful assumption.  The desert crossings have nothing to do with walls, and everything to do with avoiding the high charges that the cartels require for crossing at the easier illegal border crossings.

Also you noted that people were "waiting at the border to be picked up" - again this is economics.  A family can be left at the border because they have better odds of asylum, therefore they are charged only a crossing fee.  An individual has to be smuggled well beyond the border since if they are caught they are likely to be deported.

But more, I find the whole way of how you are arguing to be based on fallacious thinking.  You seem to be asserting that because a ladder can allow egress over a wall it means that having a wall is a complete waste of time.

That actually isn't what I've argued.  I've argued that if people crossing have a choice between two routes, they will choose the route with the greatest success.  The routes with a wall are still substantially easier routes and more likely to succeed than the places without a wall.  The only reason that the more difficult wall-less routes are taken is when the family or individual can't afford the additional fees required by the cartels.

Also the walls are not in any way a deterrent to crossing, except to the extent that they impact total transit time and how that impacts getting caught.  They aren't "diverting" people to the desert.  So putting them up in the desert won't deter them from crossing.

This article covers some of this,

[Kevin McAleenan, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner,] said smugglers are steering families into “new and remote areas” to avoid paying crossing fees to the cartels that control more popular routes.


Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a professor of policy and government at George Mason University, said her research shows that cartel control of the Rio Grande Valley is indeed driving up the price of crossing there.

“Kids are dying because now the families are trying to make it through other points,” she said.

And more migrants are traveling with children because smugglers are telling them families have a better chance of receiving asylum, Correa-Cabrera said: “They are promising the families if you bring the children with you, you have a ticket to the United States.”

Monday, at an El Paso shelter Roberto Ramirez Diaz, 32, said he brought his 17-year-old son, Darinel, north from the highlands of western Guatemala last month because a smuggler told them it would be easier to cross as a family.

Darinel explained that the price of crossing was also less for a family than for a single adult — $4,600 compared to $8,000 — because families could be left at the border to claim asylum whereas individuals must be guided deeper into the country.

General Comments / Re: Stupid Lies - Other than Trump
« on: February 13, 2019, 03:33:30 PM »


Stuff like this is almost never a lie.  It is simply the unreliable nature of memory.  She almost certainly believed that she was listening to those artists at that time - in all likelihood her brain simply merged memories from that time period with later memories where she was listening to those songs and smoking pot.

Our brains change each memory whenever we access it; amalgamates memories together; sometimes we remember stories of others (including stories from reading fiction and watching movies) as our own; even dreams can be 'remembered' as real, etc.

General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal
« on: February 11, 2019, 06:46:08 PM »
The goal is to get into the country and take advantage of a system that doesn't work.  You stop it with a wall or you stop it with an automatic writ of deportation within a reasonable time (60-90 days). 

I'd really like to understand your reasoning that makes you think a wall would be effective?  I'm certain you are aware of the existence of ladders, so why would the time it takes an illegal immigrant to cross into the US be significantly longer than crossing a vehicle barrier?  Ie how does it "stop it with a wall"?

General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal
« on: February 08, 2019, 03:04:50 PM »
Here is the actual "Green New Deal" non-binding resolution,

Haven't read it yet.

General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 24, 2019, 08:37:14 PM »
Also on the negatives - the amount of eminent domain required will be a nightmare.

General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 24, 2019, 08:11:37 PM »
For non-criminal mexicans - they can fly to Canada (300$) and cross the northern border for much less than it costs to cross from the south.  So anyone non-criminal mexican citizen that wants to enter the US illegally can cheaply and easily do so.
For criminal mexicans - they can use the tunnels that the cartels have made specifically for transporting marijuna and gang members under existing walls.
For drugs - depending on the drug they either come under the wall via cartel tunnels(marijuana) via tunnels; via the northern border where there fewer patrols and easier routes; over the existing walls via flying/catapult, etc; or via official border crossings and ports.
Note also that the vast majority of people who have entered the US illegally for a number of years - are here via visa overstays.
The only potential value of walls beyond what is already there are individuals from South American countries who can't fly to Canada (Canada has different travel treaties with different countries).

As to walls - they add about 5-15 minutes of time to someone illegally entering the US (Both ladders and cutting are quite quick).  So they only make sense for places where the crossing location is a few miles (or less) away from a city where the border crosserers can blend in (so if without the wall it is 5 minutes to cross, plus 10 minutes to get to a city, a wall makes sense - which is why we have fences at those locations already).  For areas that are distant from cities (such as the places were we currently lack walls) the time to cross the desert/wilderness are so dominate that the wall is completely pointless - since the wall makes an insigificant addition to the total time, and thus border patrols can detect and intercept them.

So in summary - additional walls beyond the current fencing we have should be essentially useless for their claimed intended purpose.

In addition to being worthless - they also have the added negative of

1) would interfere with access to the Rio Grande for farmers and recreational usage
2) would be essentially giving the Rio Grande to Mexico
3) walls make border patrols more dangerous (greatly reduced visibility)
4) would be expensive to build and maintain (many estimates are 70 billion construction costs)
5) would interfere with wildlife access to the Rio Grande and migration

If you really care about any of the issues then here are actual solutions

For illegal immigration (non-criminals)

1) National ID with employee verification
2) Extremely harsh (bankrupting) penaltities on any employer that knowingly hires unlawful immigrants
3) Streamline process for employers to lawfully hire temporary migrants

For illegal criminal migrants

1) Greatly expand tunnel discovery efforts

For drugs

1) Greatly expand port and border crossing inspections
2) Greatly expand tunnel discovery
3) Invest in research to make container inspections faster and cheaper and increase number of people doing this job (right now we are around 1 in 1000 inspected)
4) Invest in research for making vehicle inspections faster and cheaper (same about 1 in 1000 are inspected)
5) Consider drug legalization/decriminalization as long as the drugs originate in the US
6) Drones that can shoot down/destroy drones that cross the border; or that can grab drugs that are catapulted

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 18, 2019, 05:33:07 PM »
What the Border Patrol needs most is a barrier system, one that includes sensors in the ground, and better camera systems to detect asylum seekers as they come through.

How exactly do you build a barrier system without including barriers, such as, say, a wall?

Ground sensors and cameras - are referred to as barrier systems and don't include physical walls - they are also called "virtual barriers" or "virtual fences".

Yes it is confusing terminology.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 07, 2019, 07:02:29 PM »

As far as it being a regular trick, here's an article from early in his Presidency about him tending to respond to strawmen.

It is bizarre that the article suggests a straw man, he clarified exact topics which the article quoted.

Obama stated his opponents think we shouldn't deal with climate change or health care.

I’d prefer not having to deal with climate change right now. And if you could just hold on, even though you don’t have health care, just please wait, because I’ve got other things to do.”

It is a wide spread Republican belief that climate change isn't happening, and even if it is happening we didn't cause it, but even if we did cause it, it won't be that bad, and besides it would be too costly to address.  Similarly Republicans argue that the government shouldn't be involved in trying to reduce health care costs.  So the claimed strawman, wasn't a strawman at all.  Anyone with even a slight knowledge about US politics knows who suggests we should ignore those specific challenges.

General Comments / Re: States of Emergency
« on: January 07, 2019, 06:52:12 PM »
I think the assessment was that this was the only real chance he has of getting it built,

It seems unlikely he will be able to build it using this.  Congress has the only legal authority to allocate funds.  And it hasn't allocated funds for this.  So a lawsuit will be fast tracked, which he will almost certainly lose.

General Comments / Re: CenturyLink and Net Neutrality
« on: January 02, 2019, 04:10:46 PM »
Maybe I'm missing your finer point LR.  You said internet speed hasn't improved, but industry sources seem to completely disagree, and home speeds seem to be up dramatically for the price.


I'm saying that network providers haven't increased speeds (significantly) and that net neutrality had zero to do with improved performance that people have experienced.  As a user you may have perceived increase in speed on the same connection - but that has been mostly due to technology advances outside of your providers control (the switch to 802.11n reducing contention) and Netflix's doing (giving in on paid peering - which occurred prior to net neutrality being eliminated).

The improvement on 'speed tests' has been further rolling out technology to game the tests (it does have some real world benefit as well - but not for where it matters most - streaming content and downloading large files.) that existed years before net neutrality.  There have been improvements also because more people are willing to pay for the most expensive tiers - even though their needs would be met by the lowest tier if they were getting what was being advertised.

General Comments / Re: CenturyLink and Net Neutrality
« on: January 01, 2019, 03:08:06 AM »
There is a lot you are missing in that calculation. Some easy ones - overhead is 20%, upstream has a large impact on streaming because of rights packets, and streaming is vbr not cbr.

The numbers provided by netflix include those considerations except 'upstream'.  I haven't been able to find numbers on upstream for netflix - by 'rights packets' do you mean something regarding DRM?  I'm only requiring around 150 Kbps up with a 10 Mbps down, so not a big issue.

There could potentially be some issue with ACK prioritization if your games require a lot of upstream (say they use audio streaming for communication is hogging all the upstream, delaying ACKs).

General Comments / Re: CenturyLink and Net Neutrality
« on: December 31, 2018, 08:30:34 PM »
You say that, but it's not uncommon for there to be four video streams and several game devices on line at the same time in my house.  Something that wouldn't have worked even 5 years back.  I suspect, that while there is some truth to the idea that they game the tests, it's far from the whole story and that speed overall is up dramatically - while demand is up dramatically as well.

Game devices are essentially trivial bandwidth.   For video improvements you have stuff you purchase from Cox or other providers - which they aren't part of your bandwidth (it is accounted for separately).  Then you have Hulu, Netflix etc.  Their historical slowness was because of lack of peerage agreements (your ISP wants to make money twice; once for you paying to get bandwidth and a second time to charge the content providers - both to make more money, but also to make competitors like netflix less competitive vs their own content).  Netflix finally gave in which is the other part of the speed improvement.

Another factor is people are now using 5 GHz 802.11n, instead of 2.5 GHz 802.11b or g. 

A streaming video is 1.3 Mbps for 480p, 2.1 Mbps for 720p and 3.5 Mbps for 1080p.

So a starter 10 Mbps plan should be enough for 4 HD streams at 720p + video games.  If you actually use Cox, you will see that you usually require a 100 or 300 Mbps plan to do 4 simultaneous streams (plans which should be capable of 50-150 simultaneous streams, and generally can only do a single (frequent buffering) stream at 480p on a 10 Mbps plan.

General Comments / Re: CenturyLink and Net Neutrality
« on: December 31, 2018, 02:43:59 PM »
The internet speed hasn't improved.  What has happened is that 'burst' speed has been rolled out more - which if you are doing a speed test, will give you great numbers - since burst usually lasts about the same duration as the speed tests run (such a strange coincidence).  But if you are doing things that you actually want speed for - downloading large game files; streaming films; etc. - you get the slow speed.

You can do 'disconnect/reconnect' whenever the file download slows down to manipulate bursts if the file you are downloading has resume.  (Though most 'boost' assigns a limited number of tokens per customer per time period - so that only works a few times).

This is an FCC report that mentions bursting from 2012.

Some cable-based services offer burst speed techniques, marketed under names such as “PowerBoost,” which temporarily allocate more bandwidth to a consumer’s service. The effect of burst speed techniques is temporary—it usually lasts less than 15 to 20 seconds—and may be reduced by other broadband activities occurring within the consumer household.21 Burst speed is not equivalent to sustained speed. Sustained speed is a measure of long-term performance. Activities such as large file transfers, video streaming, and video chat require the transfer of large amounts of information over long periods of time. Sustained speed is a better measure of how well such activities may be supported.

So no the internet is not "Faster than ever" - speed tests are simply more deceptive than ever.

It reminds me of the authority study where people would give serious electric shocks to people because they were told to, and associated real world events.

You are thinking of the Milgram experiments.  The interviews with the subjects suggested that most (72%) of the 'obedient' individuals felt that it was fake in some aspect and thus they weren't actually harming anyone.  Milgram also cherry picked the findings, didn't adhere to the protocol, etc.

General Comments / Re: The future of food
« on: December 26, 2018, 10:48:43 AM »
The main reason Impossible Burger isn't in stores is because the FDA hadn't approved leghemeglobin as GRAS (generally recognized as safe).  This means that it couldn't be used as a food additive for grocery store products until specific expensive testing was done, but that same testing isn't required for it to be sold via restaurants.  Now that it is FDA approved as GRAS, it should enter supermarkets soon.

General Comments / Re: The future of food
« on: December 26, 2018, 09:42:03 AM »
The Impossible Burger will crush the Beyond Burger, it is far superior in taste and aroma (Beyond Burger smells like canned dog food raw) due to the legehemeglobin (an iron based oxygen storage and transport molecule in legume roots similar to myoglobin or hemoglobin) - which gives Impossible burger the aromas that we associate with hamburger.

The price per pound is simply scaling - they can't keep up with demand so they are setting the price high while they are expanding capacity.  At scale they could easily price it for 5% the price of real burger if they wanted.  Realistically though they will capture most of that as profit - and it will probably be set at whatever price point is needed to capture maximum marketshare -  I figure it will be 1.50$ a lb at grocery stores within a few years, probably cheaper than that in emerging markets.


The thing I find interesting is the Press is playing off his resignation as though it were effective immediately, and people are buying it, I've seen numerous posts on social media and elsewhere with people spouting off about the SecDef chair being empty now. Which isn't, Mattis is still sitting in it for another month.  :o

That is because between the time of Mattis' resignation letter, and the time of your post - Trump stated it would be effective immediately, then said he said he would find a replacement by January 1st,

U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said he was replacing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis two months earlier than had been expected, a move officials said was driven by Trump's anger at Mattis' resignation letter and its rebuke of his foreign policy.


On Sunday, Trump tweeted that Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan would take over for Mattis on an acting basis on Jan. 1. In a tweet, Trump called the former Boeing Co executive "very talented."

So no Mattis won't be there for another two months (or even one month), and his chosen replacement has no military knowledge or experience.

Here is his letter of resignation,

Trump first announced the news of Mattis' departure on Twitter, portraying it as a retirement. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., attempted an optimistic view, saying he hoped the general's "decision to resign was motivated solely by a desire to enjoy a well deserved retirement."

That sentiment was quickly replaced, however, after Rubio read Mattis' letter — which did not include any praises or compliments of the president and implicitly criticized the president's military judgment.

To Rubio, the letter "makes it abundantly clear that we are headed towards a series of grave policy errors which will endanger our nation,damage our alliances & empower our adversaries." He also pressed for more oversight of the executive branch by Congress.

General Comments / Re: Trump is doing some things I like
« on: December 20, 2018, 06:43:49 PM »
So the criminal justice reform bill passed today, by overwhelming margins.  That should lead to the obvious question, why if this bill was so overwhelmingly favored did it take the Trump Whitehouse advocating for it to get it drafted, to the floor and passed?  What is Congress actually doing if they can't self motivate to pass legislation that is that popular?  What else are they leaving on the table?

These are the same reforms that Democrats have been pushing forever, but Republicans have been concerned that they will be challenged in the primaries for 'looking weak on crime'.  What has changed is that evangelicals have changed from opposing sentencing reform to being on board with it.

What caused the change in the position of evangelicals is the opiod crisis.  So instead of drugs being something that "only blacks, atheists and hippies" did; it was a problem that was common in the elderly that make up the evangelical congregations.

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 18, 2018, 08:52:18 PM »
Except for when we introduce large amounts water [...]

Total atmospheric humidity is essentially constant for a given temperature - if the temperature doesn't increase due to a forcing, the water vapor from the sources mentioned simply increases the precipitation rate not the total atmospheric humidity.

There is potentially an impact on local humidity due to changes in point sources - contrails actually decrease daytime temp and increase night time temp (and since H2 produces about 3x the water vapor for the same amount of jet fuel or gasoline - so it could have some impact - that said jets are unlikely to switch to H2 - more likely is synthetic or biogenic jet fuel); cars replacing gasoline with H2 would perhaps increase city humidity and cause some local warming, especially perception of warming (wet bulb temp) but H2 seems to have lost to batteries for ground transport so not likely to ever matter; vegetative respiration causes a local cooling.

General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 18, 2018, 04:35:21 PM »
Water vapor isn't "noise".  It is a feedback and is entirely reliant upon CO2, methane and other greenhouse gases (forcings).  It can't stay in the atmosphere on its own and it is directly dependent on forcings to determine how much water vapor is in the atmosphere.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 06, 2018, 12:51:11 PM »

yes there was.

Oh, well if his chief of staff says it in his defense, I'm totally sure that his chief of staff would never lie.

Here we see the review comments prior to the speech.  I really can't see how you can possibly characterize his presentation as anything but blatant lying.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 03:34:28 PM »
Building the case that Powell lied relies on readers not being sophisticated enough to understand that there is always conflicting intelligence.

There wasn't conflicting intelligence.  He was told flat out that the content of his prepared speech were incorrect.  It is absolutely a lie when you state something you have been told is incorrect. He also fabricated parts of claimed intercepted communications during his speech - implying he was quoting from intelligence when it was actually not present in the communication.

when the speech was drawn from US intelligence and vetted by the CIA

The vetting of his speech prior to presentation - specific notes were written stating that those speech elements were wrong.  So he knew it was wrong.  It is only not a lie if the speech is 'vetted' and then you make corrections to bring the speech in alignment to correct the false information.  If you keep the falsehoods in there - it is lying.

If a company had a public communication with corporate information vetted before presentation, and a number of material facts were flagged as false, and the corporate officer then presented the speech without removing the falsehoods - he could potentially go to jail for fraudulent representation.

There was no US intelligence telling him that the tolerances were 'too tight' to be used for rockets, and there was specific intelligence that the tolerances weren't nearly high enough for centrifuges and that we used aluminum tubes of similar tolerances for rockets.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 01:59:34 PM »

If it's about WMD, no.  That was clearly an error not a lie.

Powell clearly lied to the UN - he had been informed that the aluminum tubes were impossible to use for centrifuging uranium and were actually most likely for rocket bodies - yet he straight up lied to the UN.  He knew that the mobile weapons factory claim was also fraudulent and lied to the UN.  The inspectors were clear that that believed that Sadam didn't have WMDs.  So I'd say it was clearly a lie, not an error.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 04, 2018, 11:58:52 AM »

feel free to believe what you will. I really can't understand how you can reconcile your beliefs with the facts.  I've offered up evidence that he has committed multiple acts of perjury, you don't agree - that is fine - neither of our opinions matter much ultimately, and I'm certainly not going to convince you to change your opinion.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 05:48:57 PM »

for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard - I think 90% of the time he would lose.

So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.

I don't think we as the public should view it as anything other than he clearly purjured himself.

There is quite a difference between 'a skilled lawyer might be able to establish reasonable doubt' - and it being reasonable on the face of it to deny he perjured himself.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 04:39:35 PM »

the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.

Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,

this is the link I was refering to.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury.  I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.

His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so.  If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging.  My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 04:15:38 PM »
I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges

Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.

The charge of attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor at the time. As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor.

Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries.  You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 03:14:54 PM »
If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is.

He was being interviewed to become a Supreme Court justice - lying under oath is generally considered disqualifying for that job, so when you do so - it is strongly suggestive that you are trying to cover up something more serious.  Almost no innocent men would lie under oath, so I'm not sure why you think 'no man is safe'.

There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex.

Brian Banks pled guilty.  We have no idea how evidence compares, since the accussations against Kavanauagh weren't investigated to any significant degree (namely neither Ford, nor Kavanaugh were interviewed by police/FBI)

I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her.

You seem to have no reasonable basis for your doubt.  There is no evidence of maliciousness or other motivation for Ford to make the accussation, there is nothing to imply psychopathy which is almost universal in false accussations.  She made it quitely and only went public on it when forced to.

Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all.

Actually he had purjured himself in seperate testimony in his 2004 and 2006 hearings regarding stolen documents.

He seems to have further perjured himself during his recent hearings.

It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth.

He pretty unequivocally committed perjury.  It isn't something subject to opinion.

Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up.

There seems no basis for this belief - she seems to completely and sincerely belive her testimony.

Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong.

You almost certainly are.  Ford's testimony seems utterly sincere.  She could be confused, mistaken etc, all of the things that cause memory to be in error, but there is no rational basis to think she is lying.

But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.

We actually have a lack of investigation, we don't know if there is a lack of evidence because the FBI was directed to avoid interviewing the two most important witnesses and further to avoid investigating.  If he was actually believed innocent by Republicans and that Ford were lying they would have insisted that Ford and Kavanaugh be interviewed. To me this is pretty indicative that Republicans believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself and believe that Ford is telling the truth.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 02:05:54 PM »
But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.

Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached.  Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.

His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 03, 2018, 12:31:14 PM »
Wait for an investigation?  What about believe all women?  Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.

"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.  For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted.  So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.

Also I've always held consistent opinions - that some people misremember/misinterpret events and people and our memories readily conflate things and can even adopt others memories or stories (or even recollections of fictional accounts) as our own.  Thus individuals are frequently not lying, but their beliefs are mistaken.  Also I've consistently held that a small subset of individuals are psychopaths who will make false accusations for their own reasons (revenge or advancement are common, though sometimes for entertainment).

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: December 02, 2018, 01:22:13 PM »
For those interested,

here is a description of the allegations at the patheos site,

Here is Tyson's response,

His responses and descriptions of events also seem perfectly reasonable and plausible and don't seem to be terribly different factually from the allegations but quite different in terms of perspective.

Hopefully an investigation will clarify the truth of the matter.

General Comments / Re: Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight...
« on: December 02, 2018, 12:56:41 PM »
This is true in the vast majority of robberies.  As long as the bad guy has no intention of shooting you, you can 'scare them off'.  In most robberies the gun is a means to increase the rate of compliance and to make the transaction go faster, it is not intended to be used.

General Comments / Re: What's the worst that could happen?
« on: November 26, 2018, 09:27:53 AM »
They are knocking out a receptor on white blood cells (many viruses enter the body via attaching to receptors, but most of the most widespread viruses enter through fairly critical receptors so this approach isn't generally worthwhile).   The main risk appears to be that this receptor plays a role in 'quieting' the immune system after an immune response finishes - so their immune systems could 'overreact' to other viral or bacterial infections.

The idea of editing CCR5 has been discussed by other scientists, so the idea isn't new, it is someone deciding that the risks are worth it.

I think CRISPR gene editing is inevitable so this doesn't really 'freak me out'.  Probably within a generation it will be common to do some sort of CRISPR editing of your offsprings genes to eliminate a disease or enhance health or intellect.  So yes 'GATTACA' is coming.

Personally rather than doing CCR5 knockout, I'd be interested in reactivating theta-defensins.  Somewhere in evolutionary history we (great apes) had a missense mutation that lost theta-defensins - an 'antimicrobial peptide' produced by the body by 'old-world primates' that protects against a variety microbes including retroviruses.  We have the gene present for it, but have a 'pre-mature stop codon' so it never becomes coded to protein.  Our body secrete defensins along the epithelial surfaces (skin, GI tract, urinary tract, eyes) as one of the first line defenses against microbial pathogens.  So restoring it might greatly reduce risk of HIV and other retroviral infections (as well as a variety of bacterial and fungal infections).

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 25, 2018, 11:37:49 AM »
The felony domestic violence charges - which was the reason for the arrest - have been dropped.  Referral to city attorney for determination of whether there should be misdemeanor domestic violence charges.

Someone in China watched an episode of Black Mirror and said "that's a great idea!",

Hangzhou rolled out its personal credit system earlier this year, rewarding “pro-social behaviors” such as volunteer work and blood donations while punishing those who violate traffic laws and charge under-the-table fees. By the end of May, people with bad credit in China have been blocked from booking more than 11 million flights and 4 million high-speed train trips, according to the National Development and Reform Commission.

According to the Beijing government’s plan, different agencies will link databases to get a more detailed picture of every resident’s interactions across a swathe of services. The proposal calls for agencies including tourism bodies, business regulators and transit authorities to work together

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 02:34:51 PM »
Oh, I knew that. I just didn't know if you were taking about ornery publications or other wons. :)

Ah - well it is the same for me on Quora and on Arstechnica.  It is odd to me how often I seem to make errors.

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 01:29:10 PM »
I totally agree that it is absurd that a professional news organization doesn't have good copy editing.  My comment and DW's were in fun, not seriously excusing their lack of copy editing.

Mine was also pointing out that Ornery writers copyediting probably isn't as good as you were suggesting.

General Comments / Re: CNN needs a proof reader
« on: November 21, 2018, 11:49:50 AM »
I usually have 3 post publication edits before I fix all the typos :)

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 20, 2018, 05:02:28 PM »

yep seems fairly credible to me, though it differs significantly from the initial report.  Does this lawfully qualify as domestic violence?  He probably should have called the cops to evict her rather than trying to do so himself.  But it doesn't sound like it could meet the definition of domestic violence in most jurisdictions.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13