Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Just let me build a bridge!" (Score 4, Insightful) 194

by Qzukk (#47518245) Attached to: 'Just Let Me Code!'

When you want to build a bridge, you don't just throw a bunch of construction workers at it and trust them to make the best judgements, even though you might trust each one of them individually to build a sawhorse or something equally trivial.

You also don't have the president of the company come in and declare that this week we're switching to agile bridge building and fuck six, we're going to seven sigmas so we can be on the bleeding edge and shift our paradigms into high gear to synchronize our release schedule and get out ahead of the pack as we swing around the final stretch into the processification.

Comment: Re:This would actually be useful the other way aro (Score 1) 205

by Qzukk (#47501215) Attached to: New Toyota Helps You Yell At the Kids

But just no, to the conversation mirror - most parents already don't keep their eyes on the road, we don't need to give them another excuse.

Ah, memories of my childhood. Things like my father flying down the freeway at 60 turning around in his seat and screaming "You look at me when I'm talking to you boy!" while everyone else screamed about oncoming traffic.

At the time I learned to drive, I considered my greatest achievement was being able to hold a conversation without looking at the person I'm speaking with.

Comment: Re:barf (Score 1) 154

That's also seen in bad console ports, by the way.

I've long since overcome my motion sickness (mom's van came with multiple barf buckets), but watching the screen move like I flicked google maps and it slowly pans to a stop (especially in any kind of curved motion) tickles the part of my brain that says "stop that, it's trying to make you sick".

Comment: Re:This is not how you inspire confidence (Score 1) 151

by Qzukk (#47476921) Attached to: LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

Only if the master process quit after forking twice. This is not typical

No, this IS typical. The double fork allows the original process to interact with the user ("Enter your private key password:"), then exit and return 0 to the init script so init can print [ OK ] on your console.

The middle process needs to close file descriptors and do other cleanup then fork and die, causing the final process to become re-parented to init. Init then becomes responsible for cleaning it up if it dies, so it won't become a zombie.

Step-by-step "how to daemon" guide here.

Comment: Re:This is not how you inspire confidence (Score 4, Informative) 151

by Qzukk (#47471281) Attached to: LibreSSL PRNG Vulnerability Patched

OpenSSL's RNG is used in many places separately from the SSL communication protocol itself, sometimes just for encryption in general (S/MIME) or sometimes someone just wants really random bytes.

Many servers fork twice in order to reparent to init, repeated forking is a common idiom in unixland.

Apache with MPM-prefork forks a bunch of children from a master process, which is typically itself a descendant of apachectl. In apache's case, this shouldn't be a problem since the "master-process-rng" would have recognized the fork and reinitialized on the first openssl connection, so the children are protected because they cannot have the same PID as the master-process.

Where it would be a problem would be an application or daemon that starts up, initializes the RNG, forks twice, then without this fork touching the RNG, starts forking children to do something random (say, encrypting one file per process or establishing a single SSL connection per process or something). Without having the RNG reset by the master process, one in 65534 or so processes will have the exact same RNG, because it will have inherited the original RNG untouched and be assigned the PID that created the RNG.

Comment: Re:Rand Paul's a plagiarizing misogynistic racist (Score 2) 526

by Qzukk (#47466317) Attached to: Rand Paul and Silicon Valley's Shifting Political Climate

with fewer regulations for everyone

Ahahaha whoa there now, slow down sonny. Those regulations are there for a reason, mostly to keep people from competing against me and to make sure that nobody smokes anything I wouldn't openly admit to smoking. Let's back up to that low taxes thing.

Comment: Re:Lessons not learned (Score 1) 205

I went across the street and told my elderly neighbours (both have since passed) who had survived the great depression and served in world war 2 that no, they had seen worse in the world, and it wasn't going to end, all they had to do was change the batteries in their smoke detectors and get a good nights sleep.

Well THERE'S the problem right there! Your neighbors were in charge of fixing the DMV's software!

Comment: Re:I think the next step will be more interesting (Score 1) 14

by Qzukk (#47369251) Attached to: Why the Hobby Lobby Decision is good for the Left Wing

what happens if no insurance companies want to offer a plan that does that?

The solution that Alito cited that was in place for religious non-profit and church organizations was for the insurance company to be required to pay for the drugs out of their own pockets and establish a separate pool of money for doing so, that the religious institutions would not pay into. The government considered this to be acceptable because the drugs are cheaper than pregnancy care so the insurance company would save money. The next step will be Christian Brothers Services (a religious health insurance company) suing against being forced to pay for this from their own pocket.

Once that plays out, this decision may end up having little to do with contraception or abortion. In the majority opinion, authored by Alito, he claims their decision only covers contraception, but the only citation he has to prove this is his say-so. The RFRA does not specify any limits on the ability to practice religion (indeed, that was the point of it, it originally existed so that Native Americans can ignore the Controlled Substances Act when it comes to peyote) beyond a "compelling government interest".

Alito's decision that "for-profits should be given the same religious options as non-profits" is an obvious one with respect to this particular case where the government has already given an alternate option to other companies, but it's clear from the situation leading to the passage of the law (Native Americans smoking peyote) that when there is no "alternative option", the intent of the law is to allow "the religious" to ignore laws that would prevent them from practicing their religion.

What will likely happen is one of three things:

1) Nobody pushes their luck. The elephant just sits there, in the corner of the room, and nobody ever mentions it again.
2) Someone declares ___ is preventing them from practicing their religion and sues. A court of appeals cites the text of Alito's decision that this can only apply to abortion and squashes it, SCOTUS refuses certioari.
3) Someone declares ___ is preventing them from practicing their religion and sues and ends up heard by the supreme court. Either
A) The court has to decide that Alito was wrong and the RFRA/First Amendment protects more than just your stance on abortion, and places no limit on it
B) The court cites the text of Alito's decision and denies that practice with no further explanation. Or perhaps the court decides that "interstate trade" is a "compelling government interest".
C) The court has to establish a yardstick by which the sincerity of your beliefs are measured. You skipped church for the Superbowl? Mmmhmmm, I see...

All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.