Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re:Simple methodology (Score 1) 347

by Outtascope (#49144407) Attached to: The Programmers Who Want To Get Rid of Software Estimates

Agile doesn't mean there is no plan.

To further that thought, agile isn't about not planning, it's about not being stuck with a crappy monolithic plan for an entire project. A plan that isn't crappy because of incompetence or negligence, but because the initial plan can't possibly account for the realities that every project encounters as it progresses (missed or changing requirements, technical failings of infrastructure that could not be predicted, change of business needs, etc).

Agile is intended to get you to stop trying to jam a square peg in a round hole. The alternative is to pound on that bitch 'till it's round. Which one is likely to result in a better engineered end product?

Comment: Re:No fuck off (Score 1) 468

by Outtascope (#48909521) Attached to: Police Organization Wants Cop-Spotting Dropped From Waze App

Every time I see a cop doing something useless like sitting at the side of the road I want to see their budget cut. They do that crap instead of helping with real crimes. And don't say "but the traffic cops are the same cops that would be investigating crimes" because it's all under one budget.

Actually, sitting on the side of the road isn't doing nothing. Having a visible presence is the best means to ensure that people actually obey the speed limit. Knowing that a cop is parked at a particular place helps ensure that people won't drive recklessly in that area.

Sitting behind a billboard or hiding in a patch of trees in the center median trying to CATCH people in the midst of a revenue generating civil infraction rather than engaging in a behavior that might PREVENT dangerous activities, that is dereliction of duty.

Police departments ought to have a budget that is exponentially and inversely proportional to their ticket revenue. If they are writing that many tickets then they SUCK at deterrence.

Comment: Re:RFID/card scanner (Score 1) 127

by Outtascope (#48474671) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Biometric Authentication System?

What's the matter? Not looking forward to the calls to IT support to change your Biometric Password? Biometric authentication is generally a Very Bad Idea (tm), with a very narrow set of reasonable use cases. Typing a password being "a time-waster" does not, in my opinion, meet the criteria.

I'm with the parent here, use HID or something similar.

Comment: MTV News Vicky Pattison porn star celebrity.... (Score 1) 84

by Outtascope (#47666019) Attached to: Twitter Reports 23 Million Users Are Actually Bots

weight-loss spam bots, you must all die of syphilis right now!

Oh the fury, the anger. I'm talking to you nisha AttAck, and you Aileen Assauult. To you sisterly_picare and you Lupita:) and you Ariyah :). Right at you Dorothy pics and you Inez is Funny!, and you too Melonie Grace. To you Kaelynn Griffin and you Alex FearLesS.

Just stop it, OK? It's like being inundated by the stepford-wives' retarded nieces. Enough is enough!

Comment: No kidding (Score 1) 137

by Outtascope (#46375567) Attached to: Using Google Maps To Intercept FBI and Secret Service Calls

Just try getting something fixed on Google Maps. It's nearly impossible. Sorry, let me amend that: It's nearly impossible if you are or work for/with the agency responsible for the legal addresses and contacts shown on Google Maps. If you are some Joe Blow who wants to randomly change some shit, then it appears to pretty friggin' easy to get something changed.

Google Maps has cost us thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands in costs associated with mail being sent to the wrong location over the last few years (pity the poor guy who works in the office with the address they keep listing). They post addresses that they scrape from the underside of some toilet seat somewhere or pull off of someone's twit-pick of their salami and provolone sandwich, but are absolutely deaf when the easily verifiable owners of the municipalities/businesses/addresses in question can give them authoritative information to use. And try reaching a human being at Google that doesn't work in the sales department, good luck.

I know of one other company in the area who says that their experience with Google is completely different. Of course, the biggest difference is that this company is engaged in 6 and 7 figure contracts with Google on a regular basis. The motto may be Don't be Evil, but they never said anything about not being a pain in the ass.

Comment: NOT CEO (Score 1) 712

by Outtascope (#46296151) Attached to: Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?
Executive chairman. And the idiot can't even do simple math to divide his is unvested equity allocation over 4 years before compairing it to the lowly yearly income of the average CEO. That article is a load of horseshit. Sure, one could argue that he makes too much. But Schmidt didn't bankrupt my dad. So there's that.

Comment: The security implications (Score 2) 86

by Outtascope (#45753489) Attached to: Open Source Add-on Rewrites the User Interface of IE11

It never fails to amaze me that no one seems to get the negative security implications of an integrated url/search bar, especially given the underwear knots some smart people seem to get over truly esoteric 1 in a billion use case vulnerabilities.

If the URL bar performs search, it is ripe for a mistyped URL to lead you to a fishing site (hell, bad guys don't even need to register every typo iteration in DNS anymore, they can just pollute search results; it's like DNS hijacking made simple.) I have seen my wife and kids do it time and time again, no matter how many times I tell them. They don't type in URLs anymore, they just type in "youtube" or "amazon" or "runescape" and then click on the first link that shows up.

Obviously this is dangerous, but more than that it broadcasts your URLs to Google or Bing or whatever. There is a mountain of information that can be culled from those queries that can compromise not only you but your business/employer. If it were reported that Firefox was sending every URL you entered to Microsoft or Google, people would lose their shit about it. But when the browser is designed to do that deliberately, no one seems to give a flying ----. THIS is the reason that I do not use Chrome. It's a gaping security hole, but because it is Google (who i am generally a fan of) it gets a free pass. That said, all browsers seem to exhibit the same behavior regardless of whether they have a separate search box.

If the URL I entered isn't found, return a 404. End of damn story. THIS is also the reason to still type http:/// or https:/// in the address bar.

But this is all just symptomatic of the larger problem of security in general. To pass my audits I have to take a hit either for being somewhat vulnerable to BEAST or for using the weak RC4 algorithm, pick one. And I don't process financial information of individuals in any way shape or form. But companies like Pandora get away with putting a credit card processing form in an https IFRAME inside a non-https url. And those frigging morons, when explained to them why this is monumentally stupid and that part of the reason for HTTPS is for the user to be able to verify that they are giving their credit card information to the people that they intend to (and to verify the certificates), just don't understand the issue. Their explanation is that it is too intensive to stream music over https so they have to do it this way. How can they be this successful and be this completely brain f'ing dead. Hey, Pandora: _blank. Look it up ass hats!

Or my bank totally not understanding that when I go to the bank page URL and it says "John Smith and 3 other friends like Dumb-Ass Credit Union. Like us on Facebook" that they have just communicated sensitive personal financial information to an incalculable host of 3rd parties. Why in the F does my credit union need to use social media? What the hell is wrong with people? Their response "Dumb-Ass Credit Union doesn't send any personally identifiable information to Facebook, blah blah blah". Seriously? Can they really be this stupid? Here is a hint, I now know that "John Smith" likely has a Dumb-Ass Credit Union account, step 1 in identity theft process complete. Of course, he WAS dumb enough to like it on Facebook, so there's that. I, however, had no intention of telling anyone I had an account at Dumb-Ass Credit Union, but the frigging Credit Union decided to tell Zuckerberg themselves, and they just don't get it.

Put your best foot forward. Or just call in and say you're sick.

Working...