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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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 4, Insightful) 107

by ScentCone (#49359395) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?

Well, we're about to elect Hillary Clinton. She's not stupid. She thinks everyone else is stupid, and she's got enough supporters who don't care whether or why she's being feloniously coy about things like her email use (her lawyer just this evening explained that Clinton has destroyed all of her email that wasn't printed out to lamely respond to demands for her records from her tenure at State).

When she's president, don't ask why we elected a stupid person. As why we stupidly elected her. We'll have eight years to think it through. Yay.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 333

by ScentCone (#49359357) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up
What ARE you talking about? The problem you describe is the state being required to be more thorough in investigating matters like the case in question (the lady with the car, Twitter, etc). The solution to that isn't lowering the threshold by which we describe airlines pilots as too unstable to do that particularly stressful, demanding, and highly responsible (for other people's lives) work.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 333

by ScentCone (#49359343) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

So what if you have one of these jobs and are going through a rough patch?

Everybody goes through "rough patches," but very few of them kill themselves over it, let alone decide to kill a hundred other people just to add some more drama to it. The whole point here is that you can't have someone in a position of responsibility like that, and have them be one of those much more fragile people who become suicidal/murderous over a "rough patch."

If it takes something bad happening in their life to make it clear they can't keep a level head and maintain their professionalism, then they are not in the right line of work.

Comment: When it works. (Score 1) 247

by Qbertino (#49356309) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Makes Some Code Particularly Good?

When it works.

No, seriously, that's the prime criteria. I'll take crap code over good code anytime, it it works and the "good" code needs some arcance and/or bizar setup procedure that I have to put up with to perhaps get it running.

Point in case: WordPress, a PHP driven Web CMS that today runs about 20% of all websites, is a huge pile of typical PHP spagetti. And don't even get me started on the data model ... the WP crew probably doesn't even know what that is. Anyway, just the other day I spent two hours hacking the login template to coax it into not getting in the way of an auto-login feature built with Active X and JavaScript (...don't ask, the customer spends 150 Euros an hour, I'm sure as hell not gonna make stupid remarks on all this).

I mean, just look at it! (Surgeon Generals Warning: Looking at WP code can cause instant heart problems and depression!)

It was quite an adventure.

However, it works. My grandma can setup WP in 10 minutes. Come around the corner with your flashy new Java whatnot, clean model and all, if I spend more than a week trying to get it runing on Debian or some other widespread Linux, I will ditch it, no matter how well the app itself is coded.

Programms are for users, and they have to work. The rest is icing. End of story.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 3, Interesting) 334

by ScentCone (#49356065) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Essentially, you are saying "it should be illegal to have secrets from the state".

No, he's saying it should be illegal to keep things like mental instability and dangerous suicidal mindsets secret from the state when the state is what licenses you to be entrusted, day-in, day-out, with the lives of hundreds of people. If you've got mental problems, don't look for a job where that is by definition a disqualifier. It appears this German guy knew that, and was hiding his problems from his employer and the regulatory agencies that license his operation of giant passenger aircraft.

Comment: Re:Reminds me of one thing (Score 1) 724

by IamTheRealMike (#49352757) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

Because then everyone dies when the computer fails. Autopilots regularly fail and expect the pilot to take over

I think this depends on your definition of "fail". As far as I know true computer failures where the machine just goes crazy and tries to crash the plane are non-existent. What happens more regularly is the autopilot sees that something weird is happening and chooses to disengage itself - presumably an autopilot program could be written that never disengages and always does the best it can to fly the plane, unless deliberately disengaged.

This is particularly problematic when sensors fail, as they did in AF447, and the computer doesn't know what's going on any more.

No, this is irrelevant. If the planes sensors completely fail then the pilot doesn't know what's going on either, and the plane is probably doomed no matter what. In normal operation these planes are flying in a very small speed corridor between disintegration and stalling. If you don't know how fast your going a stall or overspeed is pretty much inevitable, and if you don't know how high you are even basic visibility problems can cause a crash into the surface. Neither human nor computer can succeed in such a situation.

Comment: Re:Trade secret? (Score 1) 74

by ScentCone (#49349053) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

Future plans would, by definition, be unreleased product, so that does not count.

It may indeed count - lots of products have latent features included specifically to support future developments or accessories, or interoperability with perhaps some other product or service which is still in development.

A car manufacturer may very well 'consider' his design to be a secret, but once the car is available for sale they can't successfully claim it IS a secret

The "car's design" may not be a "secret" in the most casual sense of that term, but there may be software features, or other aspects of things like interface design that are not yet put to work because new options are coming down the road. Even if a not-yet-used feature or interface is patented, that doesn't mean that knowledge of it or how it might leverage other third-party deals for new behavior or features isn't considered very much to be sensitive information and exactly the sort of thing you'd want to discuss under and NDA. I may have a patent on something, but that doesn't mean that everything I have to say with prospective partners or employees or retailers is something that I consider insignificantly strategic or sensitive to want to protect.

The only way an NDA makes sense in this case is if they planned to have every person who entered one of 'their' datacenters, for all eternity, sign an NDA

Just because you can walk into a datacenter doesn't mean you'll understand, by looking around, every last competitive detail about how things are being done under the hood.

I have a pile of equipment running in a datacenter. There's a two-way NDA in place to protect both their operations and mine, not that either of us are doing anything terribly exciting. Sometimes the NDA is there just to keep the overall nature of the business arrangements or financial information from being disclosed. For example, I don't want MY customers to be able to pick around and find out what I pay for my co-lo space. Likewise, my datacenter doesn't want me to write a blog describing their internal security operations, or what I pay for the particular deal we struck three mergers/acquisitions ago.

Comment: Re:people are going to be saying (Score 1) 724

by ScentCone (#49348063) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

what exactly is confusing to you about that term

Nothing. Both I and the people who wrote it completely understand the context in which it's used. YOU on the other hand, are inventing a completely new interpretation of the constitution wherein the document they wrote to limit the government's ability to infringe on your rights is suddenly (but just in this case!) suddenly the exact opposite. Which part of "shall not be infringed" are YOU have trouble with? Again, please link to any - even ONE - writing by a single author of the constitution that suggests, for a moment, that they intended the second amendment, let along the entire document, to be a limit on the people, in stead of a limit on the government. Go ahead, cite some heretofore undiscovered writings. Please!

What? You can't find any? I thought so.

we will have the founder's intent

The founders intent was to make sure that the government "shall not infringe" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Why? Because they also had to stand up an army ("militia") on occasion, and didn't want ANYONE (especially people like you) to be confused and begin to think that it was only the militia that would be allowed to keep and bear arms. Your inability to read 18th century writing in the context in which it was written doesn't change the entire purpose of the constitution into a regulatory document that limits your freedoms. It's exactly the opposite.

So, go ahead: cite a single piece of correspondence, a single page from the federalist papers, ANYTHING that begins to support your inability to parse the language. You won't even bother to try, because you know you're just making stuff up in hopes that someone else reading your posts will think the constitution is a freedom limiting, rather than a freedom protecting document. You're just pretending that you don't understand that the constitution leaves it up to the states to pass legislation that sets forth criminal penalties for things like murder. Why you want to look so dumb is a bit of a mystery.

So, fire away. Let's see something other than your backwards assertions. You claim to know the founders' intent, but you cannot trouble yourself to actually cite a single passage from any of them that backs up what you say. Go for it. Show that you're not a liar by doing something other than stamping your feet.

all of the lies about the benefits are guns are outweighed by the obvious facts of the hell of too many easy guns

So you're saying the FBI is lying now? Please show your evidence - not just you having another fit - that indicated where, precisely, they are incorrect in their reporting. No? You don't have any, do you?

Tens of thousands of people are killed using knives, pipes, and cars, etc. Have you just not got around to finding a way to re-interpret the constitution to claim the founders wanted people to be well trained in their use? You keep dodging that question. Why? Because you know you're deliberately trying to mislead on this topic.

OK! Ready for your links to historical writings. Go.

If you want, you can start by finding some opposition to the people who wrote the huge body of documents surrounding the forming and adoption of the amendments.

Here's a typical example, from Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution from 1789: "Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Case in point. They're talking about the amendment preserving the individual right to keep and bear arms, privately, specifically because there will also be a government-armed/trained militia/army. You are deliberately flipping their intent upside down in an attempt to reinvent the constitution to suit your tastes.

How about Samuel Adams, clarifying things for you, in 1788: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." That sums up the first round of amendments nicely, and makes it plainly clear (to everyone but you, because you're trying to wish it away, and assume that they wrote just one of those amendments as a regulation requiring limits rather than protecting liberty) that ALL of those amendments are intended to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER. To prevent the government from infringing on things like freedom of speech, freedom to keep their own arms, assembly, etc.

You're probably thinking of some other founders, right? You wouldn't want to involve people like Jefferson, probably, because it would ruin your narrative? Jefferson loved to quote Beccaria, incuding this one: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

I'll look forward to you citing a specific example of the second amendment being described by any of the people who wrote and implemented all of those contemporary amendments, as protecting a right that was in ANY way conditional on passing some sort of government test of skill. You seem certain that intent exists: put up, or shut up. Show the thinking that defines the founders' concepts of a skill test for individual gun ownership, something that they repeatedly say shall not be infringed.

Comment: Re:it could have been an accident (Score 1) 724

by radtea (#49347797) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

there is an infinitesimally small chance that it was engaged by accident.

And since air disasters necessarily depend on extremely low-probability events, this is not an argument for the proposition "therefore this was most likely not the cause".

We know that whatever happened it had an outrageously low probability. This makes speculation in advance of data useless, because there are an almost unlimited number of highly improbable things that could have happened, and anyone who thinks they can imagine their way to the correct one is innumerate: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...