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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Self-congratulatory nonsense, born in the 90's (Score 1) 246

Malware thrives on code you didn't look at. You didn't look at it because you didn't write it. Some web forum told you it was the proper way to do things, so you used it, because you're more afraid to look bad to a web forum than you are of looking bad to your boss, and now you have the vulnerabilities that came with it.

Simpler code is more robust code. Simpler code is code you can fully understand. Simpler code is code you can modify, rather than being stuck with it because you're afraid to touch it. Simpler code is code you can modify, because you don't have to have your changes accepted by a web forum or a remote dev team that doesn't give a crap about your changes.

Code you wrote yourself is code malware authors don't already know how to exploit.

Comment Self-congratulatory nonsense, born in the 90's (Score 2) 246

very, very few people have the required mindset to [create code]

While there's some truth to this, the self-congratulatory attitude that comes with it has ruined the entire field.

Prior to the 90's, programming was about solving problems, and a good solution was a simple solution. Then soccer moms entered the field and programmers didn't feel so special anymore. (Exaggerating only slightly) They responded by making everything as complex as possible, and turned from problem solving to learning minutiae, so that only autistic people want to do the job, and now they can call themselves specially suited...because they made it that way. Programmers are now so afraid of doing something their peers would disapprove of, for fear of not demonstrating the minutiae they've learned, that they won't design solutions for themselves. Now they have to have frameworks and use accepted buzzwords that someone else made up to describe techniques someone else created, and they saddle their employers with having to support soon-to-be-obsolete technology that they spend more time getting to work than if they had just solved the damned not-very-complex problem they were given.

Comment Re:A Mac (Score 1) 197

FWIW my vision is only marginally bad (I'm far-sighted, and getting worse with age), and I have corrective glasses, and even my very modest disability is helped by such an easy zoom. I use it constantly. It's such a natural and integral part of using my Mac that I forget about it when I contemplate switching from a Mac to something else...until I use something else.

Comment A Mac (Score 1) 197

Get a Mac. No matter what's on-screen, you can hold the control key and scroll (or swipe up/down on a trackpad) to zoom the whole screen. Move the mouse cursor to the edge to pan. It's intuitive, it doesn't take any screen space, it's variable zoom, and it doesn't limit magnification to a portion of the screen.

I have a nearly blind friend who ranted for years that nothing adequately replaced her Windows XP magnifier, and that a good screen reader would cost a fortune. I kept telling her to go to a Mac store and try out the magnifier and screen reader. She finally did so, bought a Mac Mini, and I haven't heard a complaint since about screen magnifiers or screen readers, and I no longer get frantic calls for support when she can't see well enough to figure out how to fix something she broke, and I'm not sure if the latter is because she's no longer breaking things or because she can see well enough to figure things out for herself.

Comment I don't give a crap...until it hits DVD (Score 3, Interesting) 438

I will not check out CBS's "online platform".

I will not jump through hoops to see programming. I will not sign up for multiple entertainment services and take on yet more monthly bills. I will not tolerate piss-poor streaming quality. I most especially will not tolerate incessant advertising, even if the service is free. *Especially* if it is free.

We have reached the point where the number of entertainment choices, the un-originality of them, the hoops and interruptions and surveillance they come with, has reduced their value to next to nothing. What we need is fewer sources, not more. We need aggregators, like cable TV services with on-demand access, at fair prices, with actual competition and no sports channel taxes.

Netflix is the best we have, but they are moving in the wrong direction, increasing prices so they can offer their own programming. They don't have an ESPN tax, but they do have a Orange-is-the-new-black tax. And their selection isn't awesome and isn't timely or even stable.

I won't see the new Trek until it has been out on DVD long enough to drop in price, a lot, because I hate even the ads they sometimes put on DVD, so I won't pay more than $17 for a season of television programming.

Or maybe Netflix will pick it up and I'll get to see it before they drop it...and re-add it...and drop it... and...

Screw it. All this wonderful technology the 21st century has brought us has pretty much been squandered by shitty business models and fucking shareholder value.

Comment tools, not rules (Score 1) 497

I see a lot of rigidity around buzzwords and established practice, because programmers these days are given tools, and to appear smart to other programmers, they treat these tools as rules. As if knowing some rules is more important that solving problems and getting the job done. It's apparently easier to show how smart you are by regurgitating rules and criticizing people who don't follow them rigidly than it is to actually accomplish things.

Comment can't code, afraid of disapproval (Score 4, Insightful) 497

It seems that many in the field these days are afraid to code something themselves for fear that someone will find fault. So, they do things "the established" way, which is generally frameworks or anything that can be called "reusable", even if this generation's "reusable" is always less reusable than last, because it keeps getting needlessly more complex to the point that nobody *can* reuse it.

Used to be programmers had a fault we called "not invented here", in that they'd insist on re-writing things that already existed, because it was easier to understand their own code than to use someone else's. These days it's reversed. For fear of criticism, they *must* use someone else's code rather than write their own. I call it "afraid to invent it here."

Comment Real news: MSM is reporting on it (Score 5, Insightful) 370

The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.

Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.

That's news for nerds.

Comment Re:Pseudonyms have a cost to social networks (Score 1) 232

The problem is that we've no proof that FB's real name policy does do that

It's not the policy that does that. It's people friending their real-life friends, family and coworkers that makes them civil. They don't want to be seen as keyboard warriors, bullies and social misfits when real-life people are watching. Facebook wants you to friend people you know in real life, and not form yet another anonymous forum for arguing and trolling.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Love may fail, but courtesy will previal." -- A Kurt Vonnegut fan