Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Incorrect (Score 5, Interesting) 159

It is easier with something simpler, not something smaller. When you start doing extreme optimization for size, as in this case, you are going to do it at the expense of many things, checks being one of them. If you want to have good security, particularly for something that can be hit with completely arbitrary and hostile input like something on the network, you want to do good data checking and sanitization. Well guess what? That takes code, takes memory, takes cycles. You start stripping everything down to basics, stuff like that may go away.

What's more, with really tiny code sizes, particularly for complex items like an OS, what you are often doing is using assembly, or at best C, which means that you'd better be really careful, but there is a lot of room to fuck up. You mess up one pointer and you can have a major vulnerability. Now you go and use a managed language or the like and the size goes up drastically... but of course that management framework can deal with a lot of issues.

Comment: Well, perhaps you should look at features (Score 1) 159

And also other tradeoffs. It is fashionable for some geeks to cry about the amount of disk space that stuff takes, but it always seems devoid of context and consideration, as though you could have the exact same performance/setup in a tiny amount of space if only programmers "tried harder" or something. However you do some research, and it turns out to all be tradeoffs, and often times the tradeoff to use more system resources is a good one. Never mind just capabilities/features, but there can be reasons to have abstractions, managed environments, and so on.

Comment: Re:So... (Score 1) 150

What's wrong with that?

"they" are always there to point out when there are more than 3 pencils per person and months ordered. "They" know if you spend longer than 5 minutes at the water cooler. "They" are checking everyone's bags and pockets at the entrance.

They're taking care of all that small stuff. So of course "they" would notice such big issues as sensitive documents in the dumpster, wouldn't they?

Comment: Re:suspect it's much worse in the private sector (Score 1) 150

Oh yes.. the good old "I want solution, and everything you're bringing me is problems". Noticing problems often is simply not "visionary" enough and pointing out those problems slow down the whole "team" on the way to their "mission goals".

If nothing goes wrong, such management will win big, really big, including being on the next management magazine title. And no one cares for the 90% that fail big with that management style. Current culture bought into the "Prof. Pigskin"-Scam wholesale.

Comment: That's why they didn't do it (Score 1, Funny) 241

by Sycraft-fu (#49728713) Attached to: Why Apple Ditched Its Plan To Build a Television

Because they couldn't overcharge. I'm sure they researched the industry and discovered that it is highly price competitive and that just putting an aluminium frame on it would justify a doubling or tripling in price. So they weren't interested. Apple only likes markets where they can overcharge to a massive degree. They don't want to just make money, they want to make stupid amounts of money.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 598

by amicusNYCL (#49728509) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

How is it relevant? It points to his decision making processes, among other things. He looks at science and religion and concludes that creationism is a real thing that actually happened. I think that's relevant. I want a leader to be able to look at the same set of information that I have and reach a similar conclusion. When someone looks at the same information that I have and they come to a conclusion that is wildly different than my own, then obviously one of us is seriously mistaken. On this issue in particular, I think that all available evidence is so overwhelmingly on one side that I find fault with the decision-making abilities of people who take the opposite conclusion.

There is a fairly large group of people in this country who will not vote for an atheist for whatever reason, maybe they just don't trust them. I'm in the opposite camp, when people hold religious views that I find to be frankly ridiculous, and even contrary to physical evidence, I have a hard time trusting their decision-making abilities. I doubt that they can be trusted to make a good decision when they are faced with evidence that goes against their religious beliefs.

Paul's belief in creationism I believe is also tied to his views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. If he is president when a bill comes across his desk to legislate things like that, I don't think he's going to represent my views. At best he's going to say to leave it to the states, and at worst he's going to make something illegal on a federal level which I do not agree with.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 598

by amicusNYCL (#49727717) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice

I don't know the answer to that, but I know this for a fact: both the Republicans and Democrats have proven, year after year, that they do not give a shit about neither civil rights nor personal choice. Both of them are in bed with corporations and lobbyists, and that's where their loyalties are. Are Libertarians going to be any different? I don't know, but I'm not willing to cast my vote for one of the actors that has already proven to be at fault. I would rather vote for an unknown then get another 4 years of the same old bullshit.

That being said, if Bernie Sanders ran with Elizabeth Warren, under any party, I would vote for them.

Comment: Re:Only Two Futures? (Score 1) 598

by amicusNYCL (#49727677) Attached to: The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties

But we face the long hard task of the individualistic libertarians out there coming together in large enough numbers to begin to make a difference.

It just takes a little education. In the 2012 election I had a few friends wearing their Ron Paul shirts and things like that, expecting some sort of revolution if they voted for a Republican. I pointed out that Ron Paul is a creationist and suggested they look at Gary Johnson instead (most people hadn't heard of him - thanks, media!). My friends who appreciated the more libertarian views of Ron Paul decided to vote for Johnson instead, contributing to Johnson's 1.27 million votes (more than all other minor parties combined, the most successful third party since 2000, and the highest total for the Libertarian party ever).

I think that if younger people see the bickering and fighting going on in the 2 major parties, and they notice that when either of them are in power the people get fucked in some way or another, then they'll consider a third party a viable vote. People who have grown up watching the past 10 elections or so may be of the mindset that a third party vote is a wasted vote, which is complete bullshit and hopefully the younger folks won't be afflicted by the same kind of apathy. I don't expect to see a groundswell of support for third parties in 2016 necessarily, maybe they go from 1% of the vote to 2%, but I think that the numbers talked about in TFA are unrealistically skewed in suggesting that new voters will automatically vote for one of the major parties. They aren't affected by the same kind of thinking as old voters, and they very might well believe that neither of the major parties really represents them. They would be correct, also.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...