Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:*sigh* (Score 1) 59

by gstoddart (#49359393) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Brandstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

So because hillary is found to be lying... i mean in the dark about her email, why are we all of a sudden asking everyone about theirs??

My hope is that people have figured out that all politicians are lying assholes who think the rules don't apply to them.

My fear is this is just a brief trend and reporters will go back to ignoring the fact that politicians are lying assholes who think the rules don't apply to them.

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 479

by gstoddart (#49358857) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

Well, I'll give you my rule zero for optimizing code ... don't write shitty code relying on more layers of libraries than you can explain what is happening.

My direct experience says most of the people saying "don't optimize" are the ones who wrote the shittiest code in the first place because they simply assume all libraries are fast and efficient.

By the time you've made that shitty and slow code, it's probably too damned late to try to optimize it.

I cut my teeth writing on bare metal, and libraries which were called over and over.

If you don't start with some consideration of what is efficient, and you just do stupid things which rely too much on the library ... no amount of effort later will fix it.

Comment: Re:On what grounds could one sue? (Score 1) 47

by gstoddart (#49358811) Attached to: Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

Perhaps "Breach of Contract"? I am SURE, even without looking, that, buried deep down on Google's site, is some document that starts "By using this service, you agree to the following terms and conditions..."

Honestly, it doesn't matter WTF is in Google's ToS if those terms violate the local law.

Google can whine and bitch all they want, but you can't embed something illegal into a contract.

The UK privacy laws always trump Google, no matter what Google wants to claim. Especially since Google has localized versions for most countries they operate in.

They simply can't claim to be exempt from the law. Terms of service are not magical ... they couldn't say that you agree to indentured servitude either.

In this case, Google said "fuck it, we don't care if you've opted out".

Though, admittedly, this was partly helped by the fact that Apple incompetently implemented blocking of 3rd part cookies. Basically everybody figured out how to bypass that.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 322

by gstoddart (#49358737) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

No, I'm not implying anything ... I'm flat out saying your "one in a million" and your "one in a trillion" are bullshit numbers you made up on the spot, and therefore pretty much meaningless in terms of describing the likelihood of anything.

Since we haven't had 27,000 years of human flight, saying the chance of two people deciding to crash a plane via a concerted effort is impossible is basically gibberish.

It sure as hell isn't a fact or good statistics.

Comment: Re:Wrong target (Score 1) 47

by Just Some Guy (#49358493) Attached to: Google Loses Ruling In Safari Tracking Case

The target should be Apple not Google.

That's a stupendous way to end software development overnight. Yes, Apple had a bug. All software has bugs. They clearly intended for a different outcome and surely never expected Google to actively attack it.

Of the two, Apple made a mistake but acted with good intentions (at least on the surface, but there's no point going full tinfoil because then there's no point having a conversation about it). Google acted maliciously, and if someone's going to be held accountable for this then it should be them.

In before "lol fanboy": I would say exactly the opposite if, say, exploited a bug (not a feature: a bug) in Chrome to do the same thing. In this specific case, Apple seems to have acted honorably and Google unhonorably.

Comment: Re:Good Luck (Score 4, Interesting) 261

by mr_mischief (#49357061) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers
See the part that says "any product or service". That's entirely too broad. Have you seen the breadth of things Amazon sells? This could probably only be enforced if someone was taking proprietary information about how Amazon does things and improves the processes at a competitor.

Comment: Re:nice try but waste of legal fees (Score 3, Interesting) 261

by gstoddart (#49357007) Attached to: Amazon Requires Non-Compete Agreements.. For Warehouse Workers

Yes, but they also know you have not got the resources to hire more lawyers than they have.

Basically this is shitting on your workers to keep them in fear of losing their jobs.

I always scratch those sections out in contracts. Unless you pay me 100% of my salary for the period of time I'm not allowed to compete, I'm not signing it.

Crap like this should be illegal. And in many sane places, it actually is.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 322

by gstoddart (#49356067) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

LOL, no, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying no human endeavor can be made 100% safe, and the more complex set of interlocks people try to design to prevent stuff like this, the more absurd it becomes since you can always construct a scenario in which it fails to protect you.

Fly, don't fly ... makes no difference to me. I'll make the same several round trips per year I've been making the last 20 years or so.

But let's not pretend that by tweaking the locking just a little more to stop one scenario we don't create new ones.

People wanted stronger locks, and that's what they got. Now, they're surprised that stronger locks are stronger ... duh.

Comment: Re:Why??? (Score 4, Insightful) 78

by gstoddart (#49355967) Attached to: Rebuilding the PDP-8 With a Raspberry Pi

I've long since stopped asking why, and just gotten on with "why not?"

Building a replica of a platform gives you the experience of doing it, the understanding of the process, familiarity with the tools you're using ... and possibly some bragging rights among your fellow nerds.

Why pimp out your CPU case with neon? Why put spinners on your rims? Hell, why have cars anything other than black, which should suffice for anybody? Why play video games? Why watch TV?

None of these accomplishes anything other than filling in time or soothing your own need for something you think is cool.

To you, it's opportunity cost. To someone else, it's "why the hell not?" It's something to do they find amusing.

Compared to half the crap you see on YouTube or anywhere else with humans ... I don't see this as being worse than anything else.

With all the dumb crap humans do every day, there's at least some coolness to this.

And I'm betting you can identify at least 10 things you do every week which you couldn't answer "why" if pressed on the issue.

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson