Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 477

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) 42

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) 308

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:nice try but waste of legal fees (Score 3, Interesting) 240

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) 308

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) 66

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.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 4, Insightful) 308

by gstoddart (#49355845) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Gee, and one wonders why people might not be forthcoming with their doctors.

As soon as you say "fuck doctor patient confidentiality" then WTF would you expect people to tell doctors anything for?

So then the next thing you'd say is priests and lawyers should also not have confidentiality, because that would be inconvenient.

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

Think hard about what you're actually saying.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 1) 308

by gstoddart (#49355653) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

If the probability of a suicidal crew member is one in a million, then the probably of two is one in a trillion.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I'm rank the probability you pulled those numbers out of your ass as being 100%.

Honestly, the people in the chain you trust are the ones who can do more damage ... from the pilots to the ground crew, to the baggage handlers, they're the ones who can really mess with stuff.

And yet we've seen a bunch of news stories about the baggage handlers being the ones smuggling. Because they're the ones who have access.

And I don't see anybody enacting more security against them either.

One sufficiently motivated guy with the right access can cause all sorts of problems.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 4, Interesting) 308

by gstoddart (#49355569) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

Know many pilots?

The difference between "depressed narcissistic arsehole" and "perfectly normal narcissistic arsehole" isn't as far as you'd think.

Airline pilots are largely convinced of their own superiority to begin with.

Hell, I suspect the C-level of executives in most large corporations gets you your "narcissistic areshole" out of the gate. All the ones I've ever met certainly are.

Comment: Re:Don't make it impossible, just make it hard (Score 2) 308

by gstoddart (#49355497) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

OK, smart guy. Let's take it to the absurd.

The bad guys have depressurized the plane, and they're slowly cutting parts from cabin crew to get the code.

The pilot and co-pilot are doing their best to keep from crashing, and can't spend time mucking about with the locking mechanism.

There simply isn't a way you can 100% guarantee this is 100% safe, and you can pretty much always come up with a scenario in which it works against you.

Between bad movies and spy novels, there's just so damned many improbable corner cases that it's just not something you can get right all of the time.

Hell, break the locking mechanism for one of them so that it can't be triggered and the door can't be kept locked.

By the time you covered every corner case, the system becomes unusable.

Comment: Re:Ummmm ... duh? (Score 4, Insightful) 308

by gstoddart (#49355411) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

And, of course, we can construct the scenario in which the co-pilot and one of the cabin crew conspires so that when the pilot has to take a leak it's the two of them in the cockpit, and then they can do the same damned thing.

There's really no way you can 100% prevent this kind of thing.

Comment: Ummmm ... duh? (Score 4, Insightful) 308

by gstoddart (#49355343) Attached to: Modern Cockpits: Harder To Invade But Easier To Lock Up

So, after 9/11 they rushed to put door locks on the damned things.

And, now, to the utter shock and amazement of everybody ... someone in the cockpit can lock people out of it. Exactly as they designed it.

I'm stunned, I tell 'ya.

Of course, now when the pilot has to take a leak there is one less cabin crew, which I'm sure you can construct a scenario in which that's not a good idea.

"Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." -- Alexander Graham Bell

Working...