Forgot your password?

Comment: Which patents, exactly? (Score 1) 224

by SecurityGuy (#48158511) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview?

Seriously, numbers.

I ask because a large number of patents are, well, junk and will be thrown out at the first legal challenge. If you have one of those, quit worrying about it. You don't actually have anything of value. I used to deal with a fair number of people who were working full time somewhere and trying the software-based startup route. Having a patent on something obvious was common. I didn't really expect any of them to survive a legal challenge.

Comment: Re:Incredible (Score 2) 428

by SecurityGuy (#48112603) Attached to: BitHammer, the BitTorrent Banhammer

He's not yelling anything. He is bodily throwing out the people holding the buckets. That might well be a reasonable response if he was the restaurant owner, but he's not.

I wouldn't care if this guy ran this on HIS network. He has no business doing it on someone else's.

Also, crap article. This doesn't belong on slashdot.

Comment: It's a stay or go question (Score 1) 182

by SecurityGuy (#47965381) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Who Should Pay Costs To Attend Conferences?

My theory has always been that training my employer pays for is to make me a better employee. Training I pay for is to get me a better job. Both you and your employer should ask what the training is really going to do for you. If it's going to get you a new job, yes, every penny should come out of your pocket. If it's for the employer's benefit (and you aren't leaving for a reasonable period), then every penny should come from theirs.

Comment: Re:The Nanny State Strikes again! (Score 1) 364

by SecurityGuy (#47873151) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

I was stopped at a traffic light, waiting for a right-on-red opportunity. Lady behind me apparently thinks she's doing the same thing. Rather than waiting for me to go, she waits for the same right-on-red suitable opening in traffic, hits the gas, and runs right into me.

Luckily, I still had my nigh-indestructable car (it had been previously hit on 3 sides in an accident by a semi on a snowy road), and I couldn't find a scratch on it.

Comment: Re:The Nanny State Strikes again! (Score 1) 364

by SecurityGuy (#47873103) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

So, that's interesting. I pulled statistics for my state, and it bears out what you're saying. In 2010, there was about one reported accident per 478,873 miles. In 2000, 405,000. In 1990, 378,000. And way back in 1960, when I'm sure no one had a cell phone, one in every 313,000.

Is it possible that cell phone use is increasing accident rates but something else is lowering it? Sure, it's possible, but that's just guesswork. Somebody needs to dive deeper into the data to figure it out. Maybe people used to drink and drive more. My data source for alcohol involved crashes only goes back to the mid 2000s. Personally, I almost hit someone because I was messing around with my phone. I learned my lesson. I had some idiot 20something total my car with my kids in it because he was, by his own admission, fishing around on the floor for a CD. You're right, I don't care why you're distracted. Knock it off. Pay attention. My own experience tells me I'm a worse driver if I use my phone. I've heard of plenty of studies that report the same thing. It's also intuitive. If you're not actually looking at the road, it's hard to avoid hitting things.

Comment: Re:The Nanny State Strikes again! (Score 2) 364

by SecurityGuy (#47870805) Attached to: Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled

It's not a nanny state thing. Nanny state would be preventing you from harming yourself. The problem with texting and driving is you hitting other people. Just last week I had some moron on a 2 lane road drift fully into my lane. Luckily, leaning hard on my horn got him to pay attention again.

If you want to text and drive yourself into a tree, be my guest. It's only if you want to text and drive yourself into someone else that I have a problem with.

Comment: Re:Comparative advantage (Score 1) 387

by SecurityGuy (#47865555) Attached to: Unpopular Programming Languages That Are Still Lucrative

You also see enough new things to realize the latest and greatest is sometimes simply the latest. Now and again you see someone re-engineer something that works, and make it into a god-awful monstrosity that may fit the way its creator wants to work very well, but doesn't solve the underlying problem any better than the original. Build toolchains, for example, have had tools come and go, and more times than I want to remember the new and improved versions have simply become one more thing I have to troubleshoot when it doesn't work.

I'm more than happy to learn something new, I just want some reason to believe it's better, not just new.

Comment: Re:In-class exams are the problem. (Score 2) 359

by SecurityGuy (#47825655) Attached to: How the Outdated TI-84 Plus Still Holds a Monopoly On Classrooms

Humans are now distributed systems, there is no value in memorizing any fact when information is available 24/7 everywhere.

False. Speed. Everything I've been taught is in a book somewhere. You absolutely cannot take someone of equivalent intelligence, hand them a big stack of books, and expect them to perform anywhere near as well. You can't expect them to perform AT ALL. If you think this, you've never been in that situation. My workplace is filled with smart people with advanced degrees. It is laughable to think that the expert software developer can just switch seats with the expert CFD person. They're both intelligent, one just has a wealth of knowledge to draw on that isn't matched by a stack of books on advanced math and physics.

Basically, your method tests whether people are able to teach themselves physics on demand, not if they've actually learned physics.

Comment: Re:How about a different kind of legislation? (Score 1) 253

by SecurityGuy (#47817871) Attached to: Why Phone Stores Should Stockpile Replacements

Why? There's a simple solution when someone offers you a bad deal. Don't take it.

I used to buy insurance for phones. It was a decent deal. I spent a little money, and if the not super likely but possible happened, I was spared $hundreds out of pocket. Then prices went up, and deductibles went up, and before long I was spending too much money. When the not super likely but possible happened, I was out a fairly hefty deductable anyway. I just quit renewing the policy, and quit buying them going forward. I don't need someone to pass a law prohibiting me from doing something dumb. I'm capable of simply declining to do something dumb.

Comment: Re:Don't Worry! (Score 1) 708

by SecurityGuy (#47767133) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

If you live somewhere with sufficient wind. In my part of .us, there's often not even a breeze unless it's stormy. I checked, and it looks like average wind speeds here are 4.5m/s at 80 meters. 4.5m/sec sounds breezy, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's enough to drive a generator, but 80m is really very, very tall for something in my yard. At a guess, it's about 2x the tallest tree I have.

Comment: Re:We need to have no laws at all (Score 1) 465

by SecurityGuy (#47731179) Attached to: 33 Months In Prison For Recording a Movie In a Theater

Ambiguity: "Thou shalt not murder"? Well, is that killing I just did *really* murder, or just killing? What if it was an accident? What if he was trying to kill me? What if he just threatened to kill me? What if my property (dog) killed him? What if I told my dog to kill him?

Lawyers: Lawyers are multipliers of ambiguity.

Politicians: Politicians look like they're doing something by passing a law, even if it's a law that doesn't actually do what they hope or claim it will. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.