Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Cumbered (Score 1) 189

by fyngyrz (#49356529) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Makes Some Code Particularly Good?

And this is why closed source combined with black-box development is so much safer than open source. Sigh.

I really don't mind -- actually, I think I'd be kind of of flattered -- if people were able to look at my code, go "hey, I can use that" and then proceed to use it. And in fact, I've written a fair bit of code I think would fall into that vein. I think I could write something book-length in the line of "cool coding stuff" and quite a few programmers would find it quite useful. I've been doing this since the early 70's. I write signal processing, and image processing (but I repeat myself, sorta) and AI code, with a strong background in embedded and special-purpose systems, a bunch more.

But because a lawyer might look at my code, and use it to screw me, and through me, my family and employees quite harshly?

Bang. Closed source. The opposite of furthering progress by virtue of passing along what I've learned. I give away some of my work product such as this, but you will never see my source code because of the legal environment.

As far as I'm concerned, if I wrote it without referring to "other" source code, then no one else has any claim on my work. I don't have any idea how to fix copyright and patent and still retain the supposed commercial motivation to create, but fact is, as it stands, it's completely fucktarded.

Pisses me off, it does. :/

Comment: Not being a metric ton of bit rot (Score 1) 189

by fyngyrz (#49356339) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Makes Some Code Particularly Good?

Fast; efficient; not bloated; not buggy; respectful of the user's privacy; hardened with regard to hacking if that's relevant; not encumbered by dependencies; adequately featured; well supported; well documented for the end user.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can't hit those 00001000 or 00001001 targets, you should be looking for different line of work.

Of course it is lovely if it's easily read code, well commented, well structured -- but if the former list is covered, I'll give the 00000011 latter a pass.

Comment: Au contraire (Score 1) 714

by fyngyrz (#49355543) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Adding weight to the airplane reduces its range and/or capacity for carrying paying passengers so it would be an ongoing cost.

Who says it has to add weight? Use modern materials for the partition; carbon fiber structures can be ultra tough and very light weight, for example. And probably not used in any near-current design as aircraft take a very long time from paperwork to production. A door in the fuselage weighs about the same as the fuselage; thicker in the middle, thinner at the edges. It might even reduce weight by creating more open space in the cockpit. You can argue that it would reduce passenger capacity, but inasmuch as US passenger aircraft are typically not fully loaded, it doesn't add cost in most cases either. No matter what, it wouldn't cost as much as the TSA does, between the actual money spent and the huge amount of people's time they subtract from pursuits that would actually benefit the economy. Not to mention the level of irritation and the follow-on effects on productivity and civility...

Always wondered why they didn't design the passenger seating to be removable and collapsible and just pull all the empty seats out as a pre-takeoff action after the aircraft is fully loaded. Be a heck of a weight savings. Plus they could probably leverage it to reduce the anti-passenger effect of the seat designs created by the one-armed, one-legged engineer that all the airlines seem to hire.

+ - Underhanded government practices get a skewering->

Submitted by fyngyrz
fyngyrz (762201) writes "Blogger and activist Maggie McNeil puts fingers to keyboard in an amazingly concise, robust and well-cited takedown of quite a few police and government practices slashdotters condemn on a regular basis. Well worth a read, and it is also worth following the various links in the post; they range from eye-opening to absolutely horrifying."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:what will be more interesting (Score 1) 617

by drinkypoo (#49354595) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Tell me about it. The other day I tried really really hard and I just couldn't manage to not buy a TV.

The default is to charge you the fee whether you have a tuner in your household or not. This may be less ridiculous now that they provide a lot of other services, but it was also true back when they didn't.

Comment: Re:Cookie authenticated or open WiFi is insecure? (Score 1) 37

by drinkypoo (#49354031) Attached to: Big Vulnerability In Hotel Wi-Fi Router Puts Guests At Risk

What you use is noscript, and then you allow only the scripts necessary to get the portal working, and you don't run any flash or java from the portal, etc etc. And you keep your browser updated. It's not rocket surgery. It's not foolproof, but it's best to act as little like a fool as possible.

Comment: Re:Easy Solution (Score 4, Insightful) 206

by drinkypoo (#49353913) Attached to: Broadband ISP Betrayal Forces Homeowner To Sell New House

He specifically said no fines, that they have to provide the service as the fine.

And if they don't?

Fine them enough to bring in that line from the telco, installation and service. If that means they're paying for a fiber pull so you can get a fractional T3, so be it. It makes it a simple cost decision. I'm tired of blatantly fraudulent coverage maps, too.

Comment: Re:Easy Solution (Score 1) 206

by drinkypoo (#49353883) Attached to: Broadband ISP Betrayal Forces Homeowner To Sell New House

I guess it depends on what the fine is for not complying. For your above scenario to make sense, the fine itself would have to be more than the cost of installing the line.

Sounds good. Let's set the fine to be twice the cost of installing the line.

Also, there's no law saying how much they are allowed to charge you, and they often don't charge the same fees for everybody.

So the law says they can't charge you more because you're on a line which was installed under this program.

Comment: Re:It the UK, you insensitive clod! (Score 1) 362

by drinkypoo (#49353161) Attached to: Millennial Tech Workers Losing Ground In US

As a Scotsman, it is my duty to say "England" is not interchangeable with "UK". Even in the published piece from Educational Testing Services the term *actually* used is "England / Northern Ireland". While Nothern Ireland is a part of the UK, calling it out alongside England only adds to the slight. The possibly non-existent / mythical Scotland and Wales are many times larger than Northern Ireland but clearly down't merit a mention.

You chose to be part of the UK, you can live with being referred to as a citizen thereof. If you don't like it, you can try another referendum.

Comment: Re:Aww poor baby (Score 1) 617

by drinkypoo (#49353143) Attached to: Jeremy Clarkson Dismissed From Top Gear

Good point about screwing with the delivery, though I would assume that the BBC is big enough and has a solid enough reputation that this would be a 'blip' rather than a noticable loss of confidence.

You're forgetting that Top Gear is the most popular television program... in the world. It's rather on the same scale as mismanagement of the Superb Owl.

"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351