Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: You are fine without any. (Score 1) 317

by lysium (#48552401) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Are Any Certifications Worth Going For?
I'm your same age cohort, same specialization, same years of experience, only I have no degree and I stayed out of management.

Certifications are for the inexperienced. My utter lack of credentials combined with my long history of being well-paid to do the work IS my meta-certification, if you get what I am saying.

Comment: Re:Sanity? (Score 2) 451

by Tanktalus (#48256265) Attached to: Ken Ham's Ark Torpedoed With Charges of Religious Discrimination

Without any regard to the religious organisation. As long as any group can qualify for tax breaks of a similar nature for a similar sized tourist attraction with similar business plans, and expectation of tourist dollars spent in-state, regardless of the religosity or lack thereof of the attraction, then they are supporting tourism for tourist purposes.

(And I say that disagreeing with Ham's interpretation of the Bible.) (And disagreeing with the whole concept of selective tax breaks - if you have spare cash, spread it around by lowering all taxes, not just certain ones.)

Comment: Re:Predictable responses (Score 2) 59

by Tanktalus (#48181605) Attached to: Brain Patterns Give Clues To Why Some People Just Keep Gambling

Really, it doesn't matter if the brain lacks free will. We necessarily must presume it does for our legal system to have any effect. It doesn't matter whether you're a thief or a diagnosed kleptomaniac, either way we need to find a way to keep you away from the personal property of others. Sure, the methods used may change, but we've determined (whether through free will or some reasonably complete facsimile thereof) that this is not acceptable behaviour in our society, and it must be caught and removed.

Comment: Re:Who cares about succinctness .... (Score 1) 165

by Tanktalus (#47983735) Attached to: Rosetta Code Study Weighs In On the Programming Language Debate

Perl [lets] you express a lot of operations in a few characters. Syntactically succinct, hard to read.

That really depends on your experience level, like in anything. Reading a wiring diagram is arcane to the uninitiated, but once you know what symbols represent what types of circuit pieces (including resistors, capacitors, diodes, FETs, etc.), they are both syntactically succinct and easy to read because you can tell what goes where at a glance, you don't need to read and parse a lot of text.

Same thing in Perl. Once you actually learn it, it becomes easier and faster to read than, say, Java, because there's less skipping over of absolute boilerplate. The more I use perl, the less patience I have for trying to find my way through the verbosity that is Java.

Comment: Re: There we go again (Score 1) 383

by Tanktalus (#47651687) Attached to: DARPA Wants To Kill the Password

Do you think that simply because you omitted that common attack vector that it's magically not going to happen?

Rate limiting, et al, has a singular primary purpose: to make things hard enough that an attacker doesn't get the password hash. Anything else is pure gravy.

Once the attacker has the password hash, the next defense is a strong password. And that's where we need to focus the entire debate about passwords vs passphrases vs biometrics vs telepathy. Assume the attacker has your password hash. This worst-case scenario is reality all too often. Yes, throttle password attempts and all that, but if your server has Sarah Palin or Barack Obama on it, assume that someone, somewhere, will deploy sufficient resources to getting that password hash through some zero-day vulnerability. (If your site is just discussing hooch for local rednecks in Bumfuk, Virginia, then the passwords are likely safe, regardless of how insecure the system is.)

Comment: Re:hahaha! (Score 1) 932

by Tanktalus (#47215641) Attached to: House Majority Leader Defeated In Primary

I'd suggest the penalty be based on the savings, not the cost.

If the illegal is simply indentured, unpaid servant, the penalty goes to zero? Instead, I'd suggest asking a local union (just for kicks, mind you) what the going rate is for that work, subtracting the actual pay, and using that as your basis for penalty. If the illegal was paid full union rates, I could live with "no penalty" - they've been penalised enough, I suppose.

"If you don't want your dog to have bad breath, do what I do: Pour a little Lavoris in the toilet." -- Comedian Jay Leno