Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Avoiding smart risks is often far riskier. (Score 1) 200

by WaffleMonster (#49379357) Attached to: Why You Should Choose Boring Technology

By constantly taking the 'safe' option, you can actually end up in a very high-risk stagnant position, where you'll be slower to market, or new entrants can dramatically undercut your cost structure. It's also very easy to end up with millions of lines of inflexible, proprietary code; because you're ignoring new frameworks that your competitors leverage with just 10's of thousands of lines instead.

What I'm not seeing in the market is enabling capabilities.

People always like to talk about language/feature x or framework y or pattern z... yet all browsers, codecs, operating systems, networking stacks, game engines, database engines of import are written in some form of C. Automated porting tools exist and decade(s) have passed...still crickets.

The useful progress I see occurring is locked up in incremental improvements rather than "new ideas" and fly by night projects.

What I really want to see is something transformative ... something where if you don't use it you will be left behind or simply otherwise not have the capability to implement a system like your competitor.

If you take away the game engine or the database engine or the browser or network stack a lot of people would be screwed simply not otherwise have the time, intelligence or capability to implement solutions.

These things were all started decades ago and continuously refined and improved upon with herculean amounts of now dead labor.

Ignoring new entrants who are in too many cases just reinventing the wheel ...poorly... is not a way to be left behind it is a way to get ahead and be successful. The era of "surprise... I found something new... everyone do this now.." is over has been for a while. Betting against it even out of ignorant dismissal gets safer every day.

Products can often live long lives, with most of the cost ending up being in maintenance & future features. But don't just consider the technology you need today, but also consider what will be most appropriate for the organisation in the years ahead too.

The best way to be successful is to heavily invest in architecture and design while de-emphasizing import of syntactic details. If you are having endless meetings over what language or API to use you are already screwed.

Comment: Re:Conditional recording (Score 1) 441

by WaffleMonster (#49365901) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside.


But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.

"But" is always the problem with reactionary policy.

Comment: Re:Time for a standardized DC power outlet in home (Score 1) 196

Not sure if that should be +12V, +18V, or +48V, but it's time to have an integrate power management for all your home, avoiding power supplys on standby.

Great idea for those who own or have stock in copper mines. Counterproductive and pointless otherwise.

Comment: Re:Don't make it impossible, just make it hard (Score 1) 378

by WaffleMonster (#49356685) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Having a flight-attendant sit in for a two-person rule may not have saved the plane, but at least the co-pilot would have to work harder for it.

Hard not to be "impressed" with outcome of making policy in reaction to specific incidents.
Somewhat akin to taking the red pill and never quite making it to the bottom of the rabbit hole.

911 - reinforce doors
GW - copilot crashes plane
??? - flight attendants crashes plane
???? - ????

Having known people who were able to score jobs as flight attendants personally I'm likening my odds with (co)pilots left alone.

Comment: More details (Score 1) 124

by WaffleMonster (#49350583) Attached to: Australia Passes Mandatory Data Retention Law

From a quick check of text ISP side retention appears similar to previous failed US attempts. Basically ISP connection "session" level detail.

ISP assigned IP, aggregate data and packet counts, physical connection point..etc. with a uniform minimum retention period... Frankly shit most ISPs keep anyway.

On the Information provider side (websites, email providers) retention appears to be per mail or transaction... an access log or email log file... This is on the hosting side only not ISP side unless of course ISP is hosting.

Thy explicitly seems to not include granular collection on the ISP end... IP flows, DPI/URL type shit.

Comment: Re:Just another reminder to use LibreSSL (Score 1) 64

The libressl fork was 11 months ago. They managed to add 5 (at a minimum) critical vulnerabilities in the past 11 months?

Probably a *lot* more than that. These are only bugs having been caught thus far.

Jeezus fucking christ.

OpenSSL is currently offering and maintaining four separate release trains for download from the bleeding edge to ancient versions lacking TLS 1.1/1.2 support.

Hard to get excited about DOS/crash shit limited to a new immature branch only a dufus would select for production use... or in other words ...OMFG the sky is falling..

Comment: Re:I choose MS SQL Server (Score 3, Insightful) 320

by WaffleMonster (#49296385) Attached to: Why I Choose PostgreSQL Over MySQL/MariaDB

I've had the misfortunate to work with 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2008 R2, and 2012, and every single one of them has failed spectacularly, many of them with the same basic issue, that wonderful escalating locks problem, which MS spins as a "performance improvement" much like driving a bus off a cliff improves its performance, and in much the same way.

If lock escalation is your problem then lock escalation isn't the problem.

Comment: Re:I choose MS SQL Server (Score 1) 320

by WaffleMonster (#49295933) Attached to: Why I Choose PostgreSQL Over MySQL/MariaDB

No. Not really. Microsoft pushes the idea that you don't need to have any clue to use it's products. It helps enable this idea with better novice interfaces. This leads to the problem that you end up with barely trained monkeys having the appearance that they can us Microsoft products.

This is exactly why we recommend Microsoft SQL Server to customers. Barely trained monkeys is more realistic than expecting a trained DBA on staff.

I think Microsoft has the only RDBMS that ever had a genuine viral exploit in the wild.

So what is the relevance some dozen years later? By all measures SQL Server has had a good security record compared with competing products. Check public CVE data for each product and make an informed decision.

Left a test Oracle server running overnight accidentally a number of years ago it had been owned by time I got in the next day...cherry picking is worthless... everyone can find an example supporting their presuppositions.

Comment: Re:Just another reminder to use LibreSSL (Score 1) 64

So LibreSSL had already avoided 9 of these issues as a result of their code cleanup.

5 of them at least a result of forking before relevant code/feature existed.

CVE-2015-0208, CVE-2015-0207, CVE-2015-0290, CVE-2015-0285 and CVE-2015-0291

This includes all CVEs labelled as high severity. This is just another reminder to use LibreSSL.

I think having other forks and more people working a project is ultimately great for everyone. The tit-for-tat elitism and misleading hyperbole is not productive.

Comment: Re:Learning trumps instincts (Score 1) 77

by WaffleMonster (#49285193) Attached to: NVIDIA To Install Computers In Cars To Teach Them How To Drive

data to make to a solution that makes sense in that context?

The problem with rules is that there is always exceptions. i.e. Sometimes accelerating will avoid the accident!

Is the program smart enough to widen the search space and consider alternative solutions?

The rest of your post is interesting.

Assuming turbo-boost is inoperable there are only so many things we can do. Go faster, slower or same while going straight, left or right.

For a computer doing some vector arithmetic brute force style across all possible reactions seems on its face to be quite trivial next to challenge of developing a valid model of the system/environment in the first place.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.