Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Transparency (Score 3, Funny) 96

by epine (#49759203) Attached to: Researchers Devise Voting System That Seems Secure, But Is Hard To Use

If I wanted ritual in my life, I would have become a priest and pursued my career with extreme political ambition so I could vote for the freaking pope.

I guess you've never read an article in your life about mobilizing the voters who are too lazy (or metabolically downtrodden from their Cheetos and Coke diets) to physically show up at a polling station?

Paper is a physical token. Reliably obtaining exactly one unambiguous, untamperable physical token with confidentiality from each adult member of society—the vast majority of which are collected on the same day—hasn't exactly proven to be an easy problem, especially when broadened to include public trust—that every voter understands and believes the process to have all of these properties (to at least a substantial degree).

Electronic voting vastly reduces the complexity on the collection side, but then the tamperability problem looms supreme, but this could almost be solved with enough crypto cleverness, except that the public trust story then requires a tiny bit of numeracy beyond grade six math.

Ritual, however, is accessible to a four-year old.

The same four-year olds who are unfortunately not yet equipped with fully functioning batshit detectors.

I don't want to abolish ritual. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

Comment: Re:in RE: Privacy, not Ownership (Score 1) 374

Well, he clearly owns the copyright on the photographs, so if anyone wants to contest that they are SOL. The privacy concern is legitimate if and only if the pictures were taken in an area where there was an expectation of privacy. A sporting event with people in the stands cheering certainly doesn't seem like a private event...

Does he? Who's equipment did he use? His own? the schools?

If he used his own, then yes I'd agree he fully owns everything, even if he was using his equipment on behalf of the school newspaper/etc.

But if he used the school's (except by permission for his own personal use, etc), then there's a case that could be made that the school owns the work. It's harder since he likely wasn't PAID for it (which is typically required) but the case could be made.

Comment: Re:It's the same in professional sports. (Score 1) 374

Most professional sports teams copyright their games. Even tweeting the score can get you in trouble. I guess this is no different. I'm not sure why the IRS would be involved though. Do they handle copyright enforcement?

There is nothing legally preventing you from tweeting the score, and they can't prevent you from recording or photographing anything (legally) unless you otherwise agree - usually as part of buying a ticket, the ticket being the contract; however, it could be argued that the contract is too one-sided so it non-enforceable.

They can control what is broadcast via the networks to the degree that is it not over the public airwaves, which per FCC are public and anyone can record.

Comment: Re:Unless it was part of a contract..... (Score 2) 374

While all that's true, he didn't have a release from the athletes to post their likeness online. That's usually part of the standard parent signature form in athletics (I assume - I'm no athlete) but that would only affect photos taken under authority of the school. So the school has no standing, but the students and their parents might.

Doesn't need one at a PUBLIC event. He only needs it if doing photos in private, restricted areas - e.g the locker room.

Comment: Need? (Score 4, Informative) 298

Need to know? None. All critical skills remain the same - communication, writing, math.

Should know? Basic familiarity, tools, and typing so that they can use the tools available via technology when its appropriate to use, and the knowing when to and when not to use it.

Technology does not magically solve problems. If you don't know how to write, using Word or OO/LO Writer isn't going to help you and it won't necessarily make you a better writer either. It's not different than a calculator making you a better mathematician versus just helping you along - you have to know how to do the math either way and when to use which formula, something a calculator can't teach you. All these things are beyond the purview and ability of technology.

So honestly, you could remove computers, the Internet, etc from the classroom and probably be more effective in teaching the requisite skills to move through life. What technology will be used in life will change over time and teaching it in the classroom won't change that or better prepare students for what technology they will actually use in the work force and life - exception being the specific vocational training for vary specific vocations and the requisite technology associated therein, even then an automotive mechanic should be able to diagnose a vehicle without a computer, etc.

Comment: Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 121

by TemporalBeing (#49720311) Attached to: Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars

TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.

Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?

The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.

It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.

There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.

Comment: Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 616

by Jeff DeMaagd (#49711585) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

Yeah, I can sympathize that web sites need money, but if you're allowing ad services to serve scam ads then you've really lost your footing. If there's more ads than content by screen area, then you're not in the content business, you're merely an ad pusher.

And most ad networks are trying to show me the same ads on every site. They also use photos that have nothing to do with the allegedly advertised service, like they picked a random viral photo and stuck their ad under it. Then there's so many ads for various kinds of woo that won't solve the problem they claim to solve. Then there's the ad that "people from your nearby town(s) are scandalized by this one web site". "Don't eat this one food" showing a banana, which is false. Video ads on a site only offering static content is also wildly out of place.

Comment: self-interest bullshit configurator (Score 1) 616

by epine (#49711527) Attached to: Editor-in-Chief of the Next Web: Adblockers Are Immoral

This is the same asshole who buys a pretty little property out in the countryside, and then after a year or two launches a farm practices complaint to shut down the neighbouring farms (which have only been there for two hundred years) because they smell like farms.

Then he shows up in town council explaining that only sociopaths raise farm animals.

What an incredible self-interest bullshit configurator this man possesses.

Get the fuck off my moral lawn.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 2) 507

by TemporalBeing (#49693523) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?

Because I'm being reponsible to the needs of the project, I end up being unable to do the tasks (stories) assigned during the development period (sprint). If I was irresponsible I would do just my parts in the sprint and tell all the competing needs to bugger off.

So the stories spill from one sprint to another. There's nothing wrong with that. That's part of the methodology of Agile, and also points that the project manager is not properly managing the project - whether not having enough people on the project to handle the work required for the sprint durations, or overloading the sprints in hopes of getting work done faster than they should, or the people involved in the project are not accurately breaking down stories into suitable chunks.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 2) 507

by TemporalBeing (#49691685) Attached to: Is Agile Development a Failing Concept?

I've got to agree with JohnFen. As a Program Manager, while Waterfall techniques could frequently end up with late or over budget, or both, projects, at the end of every project (I oversaw 5 multimillion dollar projects using Waterfall methods) we at least had a working application that met the original specifications. Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.

Having participated in both; I can see benefits either way. However, allowing the developers to do what you've said is a fault in the management of the project. QA/QC/QE is part of Agile. If need be, you just add tasks (stories) in Agile to do it and make sure they get done - if not, you're not managing the project correctly.

Agile itself is about being responsive to the needs of the project, and that includes all the QA/QC/QE stuff, as well as Security, Bugs, Changing Requirements, etc.

Now, if you're working in an organization that will enforce that the requirements will not change (do any such organizations exist?!!) then Waterfall is probably better than Agile.

Comment: garbage under, garbage above (Score 1) 386

by epine (#49676943) Attached to: Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die

It's a statement of fact, and everyone - including you and me - is terrible at programming.

Simply not true, unless you believe that non-terrible code requires God himself to reach down and personally touch type.

I heard a bit of CBC episode recently, where a breathing consultant by the name of James Chambers argues that humans are terrible at breathing, and that with proper training (this takes about a year), we're almost competent (and then flowers bloom everywhere in an orchestral swell).

Breathe In, Breathe Out

One thing I will say is that a programmer is only as good as the API he or she programs against. In the spirit of Bill Maher, I hereby announce a New Rule: Garbage under, garbage above.

Most of the programmers with legendary reputations for writing correct systems have worked at (or fairly close to) the bare metal (or some POSIX-ratified virtual bare metal with extra starch).

Humans actually suck at just about everything. Programming is not especially special (modulo rampant innumeracy). All the greats in any discipline recognize and work within their personal limitations.

It's not constructive to become so bitter that you give up, or delegate the hard work to a tool that can only take you so far (perhaps less far than you wish to go).

Just the other day I listened to this Econtalk episode from six months back: Joshua Angrist on Econometrics and Causation

For the entire episode, Russ Roberts is trying to play the same pessimism card, effectively implying that humans suck at everything.

Joshua Angrist is having none of it. He directly refutes the posture of excessive pessimism time and again. It's a joy to hear Russ taking one on the chin for a change.

Now we just need an enterprising academic to self-subscribe to a personal mission to save us all from ourselves to come along and wrap up the whole of econometrics into a protective cocoon inside of which many of the basic errors simply can not be made.

Brave new world? Or cult of pessimism?

In my corner of the world, hard-baked optimists don't write unthinking rants anchored on assertions prefaced with "statement of fact". Wits on dial tone predicts no good thing.

Comment: Re:I'd like to see the environmental nightmare die (Score 1) 369

by epine (#49646517) Attached to: Keurig Stock Drops, Says It Was Wrong About DRM Coffee Pods

I actually waste less coffee, coffee filters, etc.. now that I own a keurig and I like that I can make a single cup of coffee in the morning without any waste.

I had the same feeling when I switched to single cup pour-over, without the blasted machine or the blasted machine politics.

Somehow, I always manage to find three minutes of work to be done in the kitchen while I pace three or four slugs of hot water. Must be some weird corollary to Murphy's law. Or maybe my cookware is telepathic.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. -- Milton Friendman

Working...