Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The argument is "leaky" at best too (Score 1) 190 190

I would correct that even further.

It isn't about the fittest or death risk, it's about being able to procreate and survive.

In your species example of the 4, 6, and 10 mph creature. If the live birth rate of the creature declines as their speed increases (musculature takes energy/hormones away from breeding, high speed movements cause more lost pregnancies, etc...) than the 4mph species may actually be the winner as they will out-bread the 6 and 10mph variants.

Now, throw a 5 mph predator into the mix and the picture may change. If the 4mph variant can still breed fast enough to offset the deaths to the predator and out populate the higher speed variants, then it could still be the winner.

More likely though, the 6mph critter would win out as it is able to out breed the 10mph critter and would suffer significantly less losses than the 4mph critter to 5mph predators.

It all comes down to procreation. Which is the basic of the movie Idiocracy.

-Rick

Comment Re:No surprises there... (Score 1) 444 444

I never really followed politics much when I was younger, but has it always been like this?

You will occasionally find people who get very, very offended when you point out that Democrats and Republicans differ only in name. These people, sadly, really do believe that the next Obama will change things, and then grow all the more bitter when he ends up just like the rest of the worthless fucks in DC.

But yes, it has pretty much always gone like this. Every charismatic young buck looks like the next Prez Rickard, right up until he turns into the next Tricky Dick.

Townshend was wrong. It's seems like you can just keep fooling us over and over again.

Meet the new boss - Same as the old boss.

Comment Re:Everybody List What You Think Went Wrong (Score 2, Insightful) 433 433

It has happened over and over and over again, and seems to be the hallmark of this decade in tech: take a working project...

...and that's where I have the problem, because really, I think D2 is terrible, and D1 is far too ridden with bugs and limitations that exist because /. was once running on a 386 in Malda's closet over a 14.4 modem.

Of course, there's a good case to be made that the existing code base should just be fixed, namely:

- Remove sillier numeric limits for D1.
- Unicode. It's 2015, there's no excuse. Page widening is not a problem with CSS's max-width. - Some CSS clean up.

Which would probably not take anything like as much time as Beta was going to, but, oh well...

Comment Re:Everybody List What You Think Went Wrong (Score 3, Insightful) 433 433

1. The complaints about beta I felt were misplaced. They shouldn't have made the beta default for anyone (and perhaps they should have refined it just a little more first...) but I think Slashdotters seriously overreacted to what was an easy to opt-out of test of a new UI. (And frankly, with D1 broken - thanks Pudge - and D2 horrible, I was looking forward to someone doing something about the /. UI.)

2. I'm pretty sure that if they'd covered GamerGate in depth, you'd - based upon what you've written here - been so unhappy you'd never have come back.

3. I go the other way - there was a failure to ensure discussions wouldn't be derailed by trolls and anti-diversity fanatics, especially in the aftermath of a somewhat extreme anti-diversity campaign in one corner of tech. Slashdot's articles were of interest to some of us, unfortunately the massive wave of abusive moderation and anti-diversity crapflooders meant we couldn't have an adult discussion about the issues.

Where we agree however is that, much as I'm reluctant to attack anyone by name, the types of articles that were posted by Haselton were never right for Slashdot.

Haselton wasn't even the first time they did this. Real Slashdotters remember a guy called Jon Katz who Malda brought in largely to introduce original commentary - just like Haselton. It was a disaster. Slashdotters became increasingly annoyed by the posts, just as with Haselton.

Why did Slashdot do it again? No idea. I'm guessing they thought it might be worth a try again, perhaps thinking it was Katz, not this kind of commentary, people disliked.

As an aside, when I used to blog more actively, people (nobody working for Slashdot I might add) asked me if I should offer to write similar pieces for Slashdot et al. Leaving aside my appalling writing skills, this is why...

Comment Ya think, DiNozzo? (Score 1) 433 433

[DHI], however, has not successfully leveraged the Slashdot user base to further Dice's digital recruitment business;

Maybe they should have, I don't know, worked on making their "recruitment business" less of a steaming pile of sub-mediocrity? It's been a joke since before they started shitting all over slashdot and chased most of the users who might have been valuable enough to "leverage."

And Sourceforge? Christ, even that NAME is a liability now.

Comment The bigger issue (Score 3, Interesting) 127 127

This bug is in the JIT optimizer of the 4.6 framework. For apps you are developing, it's absolutely no problem, you just go into the compiler settings and uncheck the 'optimize' setting.

The problem though, is that the 4.6 framework is an in-place replacement for the 4.5 framework, which was an in-place replacement for the 4.0 framework. And the JIT optimizer is on by default. So if you install the 4.6 framework, it could potentially introduce this bug into any application developed targeting the 4.0, 4.5, or 4.6 framework that is already distributed.

Luckily, it appears as though the issue is a combination of a nullable int that has a bug in the boxing/unboxing of it's operator when calling the .hasValue method. So the actual number of places where this will actually pop up is hopefully quite limited.

That said, MS better get this patch deployed ASAP. Or if you are in a critical hurry, the correction has already been committed to the .Net Git repo, so you can brave a build from that.

-Rick

Comment Re:If you have physical access... (Score 1) 78 78

It doesn't really mean that, though that helps. It means that at some point you must have had a way to inject your software onto it. That might mean physical access to the computer. Or it might mean physical access to the operating system image before it was loaded onto the computer. Or it might mean physical access to the bespoke software image before it was loaded onto the computer.

One scenario, for example. You work for a company that produces software to control lottery random number machines. You insert, suitably obfuscated, code working on this principle into the software before release. The code is audited, but as all eyes are on modules relating to the retrieval and display of the random number, your code is largely ignored and just assumed to be poorly written, not evil, per-se.

Your accomplice then gets a job as a janitor at SuperMegaBall HQ, one of your clients. They're able to use a cellphone to extract the secure login credentials, which you then crack, and said accomplice is then able to gain full access to the computer with the credentials and upload a software update that'll give you the numbers you want.

This is so foolproof I could work as the scriptwriter for "Scorpion". *kills myself*

Comment We have this awesome new tech... (Score 2) 143 143

They call it a "lock and key". Totally uncrackable over the internet or via USB, and although exploits do exist, for higher quality setups they take considerable time with physical access to the device.

The "IoT" is not our friend, folks - It turns solid, reliable old-school products into yet another vector for malware in your house. And if you think reinstalling Windows sucks, how about having your oven go into self-cleaning mode during your vacation without the safety latch closed? How about having your blender "playfully" get your cat's attention with brief pulses before going full puree? How about overriding your on-demand hot water heater to its "steam clean" setting with you in the shower?

I love toys, including electronics. But the fewer things in my house vulnerable to remote exploits, the better. My toaster should have one dial and one lever and zero computers, period.

Comment Re:How soon until x86 is dropped? (Score 1) 146 146

I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest ARM is superior. It happens to be fulfilling a good niche as an architecture that provides decent performance per watt. But you're not seeing anyone wanting to use it in areas where power isn't a concern.

I suspect ARM will eventually be the architecture that's supplanted, not ix86 or ix86-64. Intel's getting good at producing low power ix86 family CPUs - I have one in my tablet, and the mobile space isn't really wedded to any architecture, but the desktop space is.

Comment Re:Update Clashes (Score 1) 315 315

You know, it kinda makes sense, but given that I've had months where I've been unable to play a specific game or two (without turning off various features that severely degrade performance) because "the latest driver" from AMD/ATI has had one issue or another, with no bug fixes available short of running the unsupported beta version, the idea of being forced to upgrade a driver that is currently not causing any problems is a definitely negative to me.

It'd be one thing if display card drivers were always being updated to fix bugs/security holes, but in practice, 99% of the updates I see are actually to support new cards (which isn't something I need or want a software update for), or to fiddle with the hardware optimization in theory to improve performance (which might be useful, but there's no reason to force such an update on people.)

Windows Update needs the ability to "pin" versions much as apt-get does. For security updates, fine, force them, but if an update is solely there to "improve performance" - or will have no affect whatsoever, it absolutely needs to be blockable.

Comment Re:Under what authority? (Score 3, Insightful) 292 292

Their permit said that they would not have this wanted fugitive perform. They violated the terms of their permit, so were shut down. This is pretty straightforward and they had to know this would happen - they probably wanted the publicity.

Would the police also have shut them down if they started playing clips of Roman Polanski (wanted in the US for raping a 13 year old girl) movies?

Sure, they can ban him from appearing. But "straightfoward", for effectively playing a movie by someone with an opinion they don't want heard? Yeah, I would call that straightforward - A straightforward violation of the first amendment.

My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner

Working...