Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Semantics (Score 1) 423

by arth1 (#48211905) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

You've made two incorrect assumptions here:
1: That the translation to "troublesome" is correct.
2: That words mean the same in different languages.

1: The word translates better to "bothersome".
2: There is no implication of causing actual trouble in the Norwegian word no matter which English word you translate it to. Discomfort qualifies. So does repeat of an unsolicited action or statement, even if all it does is wasting a fraction of a second of someone's time.

Comment: Re:Semantics (Score 3, Insightful) 423

by arth1 (#48211751) Attached to: The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll

Google Translate should not be used for translations. It's a good tool to bypass IP/country restrictions, though...

Try:
"By sexual harassment, [the law] means unwanted sexual attention which is bothersome for the recipient of the attention"

The problem with this definition, as earlier said, is that it hits way outside its intended target - flirting ends up as collateral damage. Any attempt to establish whether such attention would be welcome or not will risk being classified as sexual harassment.

Which might help explain why ethnic Norwegians have one of the lowest procreation rates in the world.

Comment: Re:Since these people still don't get it.... (Score 1) 77

by arth1 (#48206785) Attached to: DHS Investigates 24 Potentially Lethal IoT Medical Devices

Then you should also realize that over 90% of security vulnerabilities in programs written in unsafe languages wouldn't have occurred with safe languages

Good luck starting a security company with the slogan "We provide 90% security!"

Sorry, no, you're dead wrong. Most exploits are due to human errors they could have done in any language. Extending trust. Not seeding a rng. Leaving a developer backdoor. Not scaling.

I do use Haskell myself for certain things, and I can tell you it's no problem creating insecure applications in Haskell. And if you count DoS as a problem, Haskell with ghc is worse than most of them. There may be other compilers that doesn't create horribly bloated code that lends itself to resource exhaustion by doing what it's supposed to do, but I don't know of any.

Comment: Re:Since these people still don't get it.... (Score 1) 77

by arth1 (#48206681) Attached to: DHS Investigates 24 Potentially Lethal IoT Medical Devices

With a theorem prover like Coq, you can statically check any property you want.

And that you know of. The problem is that you do not know everything.

And no matter how safe a programming language is isn't going to stop programmers from making mistakes like saving input that's later used by another app that trusts the input, or set up a database or filesystem with too wide privileges, or any other kind of things that are outside the language itself.
You won't be safe just because the language is safe. That's foolish thinking.

Comment: Re:I, for one, will be happy... (Score 2) 77

by arth1 (#48203613) Attached to: DHS Investigates 24 Potentially Lethal IoT Medical Devices

It's the buzzword of the year. Give it 3-4 years to die out.

Words that have peaked and are on the way down and out include freemium, cloud, neet, big data, crowd[anything], agile and emoji.
Slightly worrying is that [anything]gate has not petered out yet.

The good things about the buzzwords is that they serve to positively identify those who use them as sheep, not wolves.

Comment: Re:how pretty (Score 4, Interesting) 205

by arth1 (#48191933) Attached to: More Eye Candy Coming To Windows 10

Ah. Mystery meat navigation. Got to love it.
The real killers with Windows 8 and 10, though, are
1: Edge detection. Edge detection only works well on single monitors. It really doesn't work at all if you run a VM in a window.
2: Apps that automatically go full screen, and many of which don't even have a windowed mode. That's a huge productivity killer, and source of errors. It kills drag/drop, but even worse, you can't have source and references visible at the same time, nor copy/paste between multiple windows.
3; No activate without auto-raise. Which now is auto-raise-and-zoom. Why won't you let me type in or paste into a window that isn't on top? It makes no sense. Do people really like to bring an entire IM session to the foreground, and, depending on the program, obscuring everything else, just to type in "ok"?
4: Inconsistent menus and windows, self-organizing depending on use. It's a support nightmare when you can't tell someone how to do something, because the menus and windows are going to be different on each user's machine. You have to shoulder-surf people to support them.
5: Dumbing down DPI support. In W7 and to a smaller extent W8, you can set the DPI correctly and control the physical (as opposed to pixel) size of what you display. in W10, scaling changes on you as you try to work. it doesn't matter if you actually want a 10 dpi font to be, you know, 10 dpi in size. No, what matters now is how to scale a random amount to fit a full-screen window with huge unused borders, and your own settings be damned.

It's like they have looked at Gnome 3 and iPads, and taken all the worst "features", making an unparalleled productivity killer.

Eye candy doesn't make up for that. Sorry.
Aero was at least semi-useful, as you can see other windows through the borders. But W8/W10? It's looks for the sake of looks. And bad looks at that.

Comment: Re:May I suggest RTFA? (Score 5, Insightful) 324

by arth1 (#48181645) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

It's also bullshit. For a weapon this age, there are no patents, and parts can and are supplied by a multitude of vendors. The number of vendors that specialize on supplying parts for firearms that are no longer produced is quite high.
What I see is an unfounded belief that buying long-term non-OEM support will be more expensive than buying support for a new weapon. In the real world, it's the other way around - new weapons are far more expensive to support. Never mind all the other costs of switching.

Mark my words: Five years from now, there are going to be Canadian news articles about how the original budget was blown several times over.

My guess: Someone has been promised kickbacks and incentives, and the choice of a replacement has already been made. It will now be followed by a circus to "determine" that it's the best choice. And it will end up costing the tax payers a fortune. I.e. a smaller version of the F-35 scam. Follow the money trail.

Comment: Re:May I suggest (Score 1) 324

by arth1 (#48181003) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

How about the Lee-Enfield .303?
Obsoleting something because it's old is stupid. If they were obsoleting it because of requirements it doesn't fulfill outweighing the requirements the replacement doesn't fulfill, I can see it being a viable option.

But as it is, using the age as an argument is foolish. There's plenty of tech we use that's far older design.

It weight is a problem, do a root cause analysis, asking a few why's.
1: Why is weight a problem now?
1a: Rengers have to carry more other stuff.
1aq: Why?
1b: Rangers are not as fit as before
1bq: Why? ...
and so on. Presumably most of the root causes have nothing to do with the gun.

Only if coming up with a solution that replaces the rifle, and the risks or problems that may cause does not outweigh the current situation should a replacement be even considered.

People still buy factory new Colt 1911s, precisely because it's an old proven design.

Comment: Re:Agile is the answer to everything (Score 2) 133

by arth1 (#48168325) Attached to: Mixing Agile With Waterfall For Code Quality

Having done pretty much what this article is calling for. Dont do it.

Both methodologies work. They are however like oil and water. It allows for sloppy planing with the idea you can change it later. It does not work.

I think the point of TFA was that it does work. And on average, better.

Emulsions can be good.

Comment: Re:You want an idea? How about we fund NASA? (Score 4, Interesting) 350

by arth1 (#48165229) Attached to: White House Wants Ideas For "Bootstrapping a Solar System Civilization"

NASA is terrible. They take too long to do anything,

Yet, they actually do something.
Once companies takes pictures of Neptune or puts a man on the moon, I'll be suitably impressed.
Until then, they're leeches riding on NASAs skirt, playing around in LEO using NASA-derived designs, and not pushing any boundaries except executive bonuses.

Comment: Re:Begin planning use of Lockheed's fusion power (Score 2) 350

by arth1 (#48165171) Attached to: White House Wants Ideas For "Bootstrapping a Solar System Civilization"

They do on a shoestring in a month what NASA does for billions in 20 years.

... using NASA designs as the foundation.
If they had to research everything from scratch, they would go nowhere. It wasn't a public company that sent up the first space vessel, nor the first satellite, nor the first manned spacecraft, nor the first satellite, nor the first interplanetary vessel, nor the first manned trip to another world, nor.... Catch my drift?

Private enterprises are good at cashing in money on other people's work. But they seldom push the envelope or break boundaries.

Comment: Re:How about... (Score 1, Troll) 350

by arth1 (#48165117) Attached to: White House Wants Ideas For "Bootstrapping a Solar System Civilization"

No kidding. First manage one presidential term without killing anyone in other countries, and then consider diverting resources to lofty goals.

And why waste money on even collecting ideas? It's not like the republicans are going allow a massive NASA budget increase anyhow, unless it's weaponized.

Comment: Re:Are you patenting software? (Score 1) 224

by arth1 (#48156223) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Handling Patented IP In a Job Interview?

If you want to do the ethically right thing, don't buy yourself in any deeper. Don't bring them up to your employer, and don't try to charge them extra money when you write code for them that uses the math concepts that you've hoarded for yourself.

Don't use the patented implementation at all, no matter how tempting or whether you do it for free. If your employer finds out that you have used tech that you hold the patents to, the likely outcome is an immediate termination and a defensive lawsuit against you.
They can't afford the risk of you suing them.

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.

Working...