Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 355

That being said, I have a hard time believing in equality as a tenet of our country (even equality of opportunity) when the opportunities of a poor kid from the ghetto, a farm kid from small-town America, a middle-class kid from the burbs, and a rich kid from a mansion differ so greatly. Affirmative action was a way (no matter how imperfect) to attempt to address this issue. I wonder how long the myth of American "equality" can sustain itself when even ameliorative programs such as this are shut down with nothing offered in their place to address this issue.

You've got it wrong. The tenet is equal protection under the law, not equal opportunity. By segregating the country by race for "affirmative action", you're explicitly violating a principle of law. I applaud the voters of Michigan for getting rid of this garbage.

Comment: Re:What I want to know is ... (Score 1) 231

For example take Richard Reid aka the "shoe bomber". Only a completely incompetent idiot tries to light a fuse in full view of everyone, rather than take the simple expediency of locking yourself in the toilet!!!

To underline how stupid and incompetent they are the "underwear bomber" made exactly the same critical mistake.

The underwear bomber apparently spent 20 minutes in the bathroom preparing the device. I don't know why he didn't just try to light it in the bathroom. Anyways, it doesn't matter, since in both cases the devices were faulty anyways. If they had been in working order, they would have succeeded because they had sufficient time before the passengers reacted.

Comment: Re:Interesting read but pretty cowardly (Score 2, Interesting) 172

by Raenex (#46816903) Attached to: GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation

It's insinuated that Julie is being deceitful by hiding the fact that the engineer is an ex-boyfriend. If it is, in fact, true that it was an ex-boyfriend, it's equally reasonable that Julie excluded that part of the story from her public side of the tale in order to protect his identity and not publicly call him out. Keep in mind Julie didn't even mention the founder or his wife by name.

You're bending over backwards here. If it is true it was an ex-boyfriend, that completely changes the dynamic of the story and it was deceptive of her to leave it out. She didn't name the founder, but offered plenty of details. It's beyond belief that she was merely trying to protect the engineer's identity by omitting such a salient detail (again, if it is true).

Given the "meritocracy" rug crap, her mention of the hula hoop incident, and her feminist "Passion Projects" activism at the company, I'm not inclined to give her any benefit of the doubt and think she's more interested in feminist issues than being a productive worker.

Comment: Re:Standard Engineering ethics case study (Score 1) 182

by Raenex (#46812963) Attached to: The Design Flaw That Almost Wiped Out an NYC Skyscraper

That's the documentary I watched, and the specific part that shows he remained silent at the pinnacle moment. It's a shame that he did so much to prevent the disaster up until that point, but didn't yell out one last time and override his managers.

Comment: Re:Standard Engineering ethics case study (Score 1) 182

by Raenex (#46796003) Attached to: The Design Flaw That Almost Wiped Out an NYC Skyscraper

(e.g. the late Roger Boisjoly, who was the Morton Thiokol engineer that strongly warned of the O-ring failure and tried to postpone Challenger's launch)

I saw a documentary on that. What's sad is that despite all the good work he did to try and avert the disaster, when given a last chance to object on the conference call to NASA he remained silent.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 797

I don't understand that parents who were former victims of bullying themselves don't just whoop these bullies asses.

And if you end up in jail over said actions?

I'll just visit the bully after school and pin him down while I hock loogies on him.

That's what the keyboard hero says he'll do.

Comment: Re:Information = Wealth = Power (Score 1) 98

by Raenex (#46778709) Attached to: Google Looked Into Space Elevator, Hoverboards, and Teleportation

In addition to that, other than things like acquisitions there are very few "top-level executive decisions" at Google. Most decisionmaking is driven from the bottom up.

You're probably still not impressed.

You're right, I'm not. "Things like acquisitions" are what empire building is all about. Google had their own video service but wanted YouTube's marketshare. They've stuck their fingers in a lot of other pies as well. It's not about the technology.

Comment: Re:Information = Wealth = Power (Score 1) 98

by Raenex (#46778389) Attached to: Google Looked Into Space Elevator, Hoverboards, and Teleportation

Then it's not the same as mine. I've also followed the company from the beginning... and I have the benefit of the insider view.

Unless your insider view involved board meetings making top-level executive decisions, I'm not impressed.

YouTube was a very obvious acquisition. What YouTube needed to survive and grow was low-cost scalability and a way to monetize the views it was getting. What Google had was massive data centers and network connectivity, plus a proven revenue model.

YouTube managed to grow to epic proportions before Google had to "save" them, as you imply. They also good have slapped ads onto their service at any time without Google buying them out.

YouTube also needed a better search engine, and Google was interested in finding ways to index and search non-textual content. It was an ideal match, technologically.

This is garbage. Google didn't have to buy YouTube to figure out how to search videos. In fact, Google already had their own video service in operation when they bought YouTube. What Google wanted was YouTube's marketshare.

Comment: Re:Information = Wealth = Power (Score 1) 98

by Raenex (#46777747) Attached to: Google Looked Into Space Elevator, Hoverboards, and Teleportation

The basis for your claim is?

The basis for my claim is three years of seeing how the company operates and what decisions it makes, and how, from the inside.

My basis is the same as yours, except not from the inside, and not from just three years. I've been following Google since their early days. They used to be an Internet search company. I can't reference it, but I swear at one point as they were getting big they said they were going to remain focused on search.

The tipping point came when they bought YouTube for an obscene amount of money (at the time). You don't spread your tendrils in such fashion throughout the industry just because you like technology.

Comment: Re:whine (Score 3, Insightful) 226

by Raenex (#46765665) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

helping the "brightest pure programmers" understand why the cool solution they developed is a POS in production

Absolutely. I was in a startup as a dev, and by necessity we were the operations guys early on. It was a financial service that needed to be running 24/7, and having to deal with "oh shit" moments while under the gun instilled the importance of writing software that was built for reliability, graceful failures, recovery, and error reporting.

None of this "brogrammer" shit or programmer "cowboys" or any of that other nonsense.

Comment: Re:Bu the wasn't fired (Score 1) 1116

by Raenex (#46721691) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

I stated to read the thread if you can't Google.

I read the thread from your post onwards, and up-posts some as well. If you mean the entire, up to the root, it's hundreds of posts long.

If you still fail to find where these donations went to, and what the yes on prop8 group advertised then request a citation.

Then I'm formally requesting a citation that backs up your original post.

Further, you never explicitly stated that you can't find data. You stated that my post was a troll and are defending that position.

I said, "But it does give the appearance of a troll." and referenced the many readers, one writer problem, which you have not once acknowledged.

Your laziness does not make me wrong, your laziness makes you lazy.

It makes you lazy for not providing it in the first place, or second place... I never said you were wrong, only that you failed to provide a reference (and handwaving at Google or a large body of Slashdot comments is not a reference).

Comment: Re:Coding Style versus Language (Score 1) 239

by Raenex (#46718951) Attached to: Heartbleed OpenSSL Vulnerability: A Technical Remediation

Should higher level languages be used when possible? Absolutely. I'm a fan of high level languages. I prefer to write software in Haskell and Scala when possible.

This was my main point. Whether it is practical to rewrite OpenSSL in a safe language isn't something I was arguing. To requote what I originally responded to:

C and C++ are not necessarily the problem. It's true that higher level languages solve this particular kind of vulnerability, but they are not safe from other vulnerabilities. To solve problems like these, we need better coding style in critical open source projects.

"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem." -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234