Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:80% Slower? (Score 1) 158

by greg1104 (#49104775) Attached to: Nvidia Faces Suit Over GTX970 Performance Claims

There are plenty of examples of both usages of slower, showing that it is ambiguous across popular usage. For example, there's a whole 800% slower "genre" on Youtube where songs are played at 1/8 of their original speed. When popular usage is so sloppy, it's better to avoid the phrasing altogether in favor of something precise instead.

Comment: Re:Don't be so hard on him... (Score 1) 323

In your interview process, ask obscure low-level architecture questions, like "What is a trap?" or "What does the BEQ/JEQ/JE opcode do?" These questions will rule out anybody who hasn't ever worked with any form of assembly language.

No, it will just make you a trivia-based interviewer. You need to be a serious authority on every aspect of a thing before you can create a comprehensive question like that. These two both have problems. I can tell how old you are from how you asked them.

The i386 processors that are all many people use now call those interrupts, not traps. And there are over 30 branch instructions in that set. JE is one of them, but I wouldn't expect people with only a small amount of assembly language background to remember that particular combination. You can easily write non-trivial 386 programs and never use JE.

This is not that hard: ask "have you ever written anything in assembly language?", and if they say yes, ask how it worked. No opcode trivia is necessary.

Comment: Re:Web Developer/Public-Private Key? (Score 1) 809

by greg1104 (#49056143) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Portion of Developers Are Bad At What They Do?

Web development now is all about plugging components together as quickly as possible to ship code. Anyone who pauses to try and actually learn how things work is at a disadvantage. While you're doing that, your competitors have already shipped something that worked well enough for people to use it.

Also, there's little sense really digging into things like libraries when they change so quickly. I'm doing this project right now that's all Go based. People who did a deep dive into learning how their previous tools are again regretting that.

Comment: Re:Excel file (Score 1) 809

by greg1104 (#49055841) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Portion of Developers Are Bad At What They Do?

See office password protection. The encryption of Excel version before 2007 was laughably weak. The last such file I had to crack took minutes. And that's still what you get if you use the older file formats.

The encryption starting with Office 2007 is as strong as your password. It's still possible to break weak ones, but you need to apply a fair amount of brute force. Here's a typical cracking program. The way it advertises support for multiple cores and GPU acceleration is a clue it's not trivial to crack.

Comment: Re:CIDR addresses (Score 1) 809

by greg1104 (#49055721) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Portion of Developers Are Bad At What They Do?

But the question was how to compute the range of addresses it allows. Knowing the subnet mask isn't enough to do that. You also need to know the rules for what numbers you can't use in each subnet block. Not even all the calculators out there get this right. The first hit I got back from searching for one didn't; here's one that does. For the example here, "Usable IPs = to".

Comment: Re:Unfortunately... (Score 1) 190

Even a hardware failure can be automatically migrated away from before it takes down the server and fixed without any down time.

The history of automatic fail-over software says that when you add some, in addition to the old issues you now have bugs in the fail-over software as a new problem.

Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems theory.