Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Bottom line... (Score 1) 170

The EU is working pretty well? Where? When? How? All I see is a means for governments to get laws (or binding directives, same shit different pile) passed on the EU level that they'd never get through their own legislature, at least not without friction. This way, they'll shamelessly deny ever having known about this and blame everything on the EU, the unfathomable hydra of beaurocracy. I guess in that respect, it works. For some.

Comment Re:Is the complexity of C++ a practical joke? (Score 1) 427

If someone is hell-bent on writing shitty, unreadable code, it doesn't matter what language they're writing it in. Sure, C++ will give you a few extra tools to commit crimes with, but just using C's preprocessor, you can so massively obfuscate your code so as to make it entirely incomprehensible even without malicious templates and impishly overloaded operators. Is any of that the fault of the language, or are you just blaming it for offering many powerful tools? And have you ever tried debugging or understanding a messy java project with 5000 files that does little more than a properly written C++ project with 20 files? I have. The language doens't matter. In conclusion: blame idiotic programmers, not their tools.

Comment Re:But but but but the whole POINT ... (Score 1) 140

An alternative to restoring the bundle is for each user of the "big party line" to "recognize the voice" of those who can give it instructions - and have a list of what instructions each can give it. I won't go into details, but there is ample room for design here. An interloper would be reduced to trying to "mimic the voice" of a talker with enough authority to command the action, or DOSing by "shouting over" legitimate commands.

Not with CAN. CAN has no concept of a sender address. It is thus impossible to determine where a CAN telegram originated.

Comment Re:Science vs. Policy (Score 1) 278

Your understanding of what does and doesn't constitute science is flawed. Science has to be falsifiable, meaning it has to be theoretically possible to prove that a set of theories is wrong if it is wrong. It doesn't and never had to be feasable or possible with current technology.

Slashdot Top Deals

"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds

Working...