Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Paired with.... (Score 1) 307

by Mjlner (#45547505) Attached to: Jolla's First Phone Goes On Sale

So how do they make money if they don't sim lock? I mean, I'm all for that but it doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective.

What a weird opinion. The concept of SELLING stuff usually implies making money. Why would they not make money from selling phones? Are you assuming that they give away phones for free?

Comment: Re:Sounds like a problem... (Score 1) 507

by Mjlner (#45277719) Attached to: How Big Data Is Destroying the US Healthcare System

Insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk of uncertain futures, not giving hand-outs (wealth redistribution) when futures are known..

No, insurance is gambling where the insured places a bet on the chance that he will get ill some time in the future. The insurance company is a casino which dictates the odds. The odds are always favourable to the insurance company, especially when the company has the option of denying you your bet. To the insured, it may look like spreading the risk, but it is really about placing a sucker bet. The casino wins, always.

Of course, an individual who chooses not to take that bet risks being screwed for life, unless he's filthy rich and doesn't need an insurance. That is why the concept of health insurance as business is inherently wrong. It is about threatening people with events out of their control into taking a bet which is unfavourable to them. This is why I, as a non-US citizen, can not give my full support to Obamacare. It's still using a system which is inherently flawed, only slightly better than the previous set of rules. Well, I'm one of the lucky ones. I don't need insurance, I have National Healthcare. You should try it. It rocks!

Wealth redistribution is fine (even though it's not insurance) as long as it follows the precedence outlined by the principle of subsidiarity: self, family, community or church, provincial government, national government, world government.

That is your opinion, based on nothing but opinion. The problem with your order of precedence is that incurs extra cost at every level. Cutting out the extra tiers will cut costs immensely and save money by pure volume. Besides, if there's anything that citizens should be able to rely on their government for, it's health care. Stop pumping your money into the war machinery and corn subsidies. Stop filling your expensive jails with people who smoke a joint. Not saying legalize it, just saying that potheads in jail are a waste of money and bring no value.

Comment: Re:True (Score 1) 530

by Mjlner (#42346447) Attached to: IQ 'a Myth,' Study Says



So, you're saying that I'm as smart as Einstein, since I like to flirt! Woohoo!!!

Comment: It's always good (Score 4, Insightful) 514

by Mjlner (#42334889) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: 2nd Spoken/Written Language For Software Developer?




Comment: Re:Advantages of Perl (Score 2) 263

by Mjlner (#42334733) Attached to: Perl Turns 25

Programs from 1998 still run because the language has been stagnant ever since.

You really have don't know anything about Perl, do you? To suggest that Perl has been stagnant from 1998 (v. 5.005) until now (v. 5.16.2) is ridiculuous. The difference is immense. That doesn't mean that backwards compatibility needs to break. You just don't know Perl or its evolution.

    Python breaks because it actually improves sometimes. "The main power of Perl has always been its ability to quickly adapt"...seriously? Perl 6 has been stuck in R&D hell for a dozen years now. Even the Duke Nukem Forever team is starting to feel awkward about how long it's taking.

Lessee.... Python 3.0 came out 4 years ago. Still, 2.7 is the one installed by default across the board. Some distros (e.g. latest Red Hat) are still stuck on 2.6. Apparently, most people can do without the improvements in Python 3.0-3.3.

And Perl 6 is another language altogether. Perl 5 will continue to evolve long after the Perl 6 becomes mainstream. I think Larry Wall made a big mistake in using the same name, honestly. But still, you just don't know Perl.

Comment: Re:He doesn't need a pardon . . . (Score 2) 231

by Mjlner (#42323025) Attached to: New Call For Turing Pardon

Considering that things like "curfew" and "loitering" ("the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time") are amongst the most commonly prosecuted felonies in the US, just to start with, I don't think it sounds too hyperbolic (e.g. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php). Linger for a few seconds too long on the sidewalk while out to lunch? Sorry, guilty of loitering.

Hyperbole! Please show a case of someone being charged and convicted for loitering after lingering a few seconds! The loitering laws of the US are primarily used to disperse gangs and I'm pretty sure that in most of the cases, the arresting officer has first ordered the suspects to disperse. The SCOTUS has already determined that charging people with "just hanging around" just isn't enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_v._Morales

I'm neither American nor a lawyer and I'm in no way convinced that the US judicial system is particularly good, but it's simply not true that "in America, everyone's a felon, whatever they do". It is hyperbole, BS, FUD and myth.

Comment: Re:Lets get a few things clear (Score 1) 400

by Mjlner (#40382067) Attached to: Assange Requests Asylum In Ecuador

The woman that he is alleged to have raped has tried to drop the case that she was persuaded to bring.

In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer. What he may have done does not seem to have offended her sufficiently for her to want a court case.

Sweden is not the US were the alleged victim can decide to drop charges. It is indeed the public prosecutor's duty to prosecute, regardless of the wishes of the alleged victims. This is useful, eg. in cases of domestic violence where a wife may be prone to dropping the charges, due to coercion, emotions or fear.

However, the fact that there are still no charges, only suspicions, make it very clear that Assange will never be prosecuted. If there were any evidence, he would already have been prosecuted. So the only possibility for a successful prosecution and conviction is his own confession. Can the prosecutor actually expect Assange to confess? He has already been questioned, so it is unthinkable that he's going to change his story in a way that would convict him.

So why demand extradition when there is no possibility of a conviction or even prosecution? Yes, in Assange's shoes I would be afraid. I would be very afraid!
