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: Hiding it and always was a bad idea (Score 1) 490

by gurps_npc (#49172273) Attached to: Why We Should Stop Hiding File-Name Extensions
We gave them extensions for a reason - to let people easily tell what kind of code it was.

Then we build verification code into software so that when a program needed X file, it would only load it if it had the right extension.

Then things got a lot more complicated. We started building verification code into the first bytes of the data and added icon to tell humans what it was.

So someone decided that 'hey, we don't need this older, more primitive system of file extensions, lets' deprecate it by defaulting to hide it."

But the problem is the extension system is STILL useful and always has been useful. People like it because it lets them type into a search what kind of file to look for.

On top of that, icons are not in any way related to the system that the computer uses - the first few bytes of a data file. More importantly, we have found OTHER, BETTER uses for icons than to signify what kind of data it is - specifically the concept of displaying a short bit of the data - a micro photo of the photo, or a micro photo of a still shot from a movie.

As such, that leaves us NO simple way for a human to tell what kind of file the photo is.

File extensions have multiple real purposes. The attempt to deprecate and eliminate it was a stupid idea and needs to end. We need to tell the difference between a jpeg and a tiff, an mpg and wav.

The file extension in the main way a human can easily do that. We need file extensions and anyone that doesn't think that is a fool

Comment: Re:Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

Actually, I am VERY fun - I just write far better scripts.

If I were going to write a zombie script it would be:

1) You know that incredibly stupid fantasy someone that is bitten but hides it because they think 'they are different'? That would be my main plot point - the heroes a group of four -eight people would actually BE bitten and infected but naturally immune to the disease

2) They would in fact be 'carriers' of the disease - like Typhoid Mary.

3) The government would be quarantining a large area and killing anyone infected - and TELLING people that on the radio.

4) So our small band of heroes would be forced to live inside the zombie quarantine zone.

5) Sequel: Eventually the zombies get all killed by the army and our group of Zombie Mary's are now on the run, hiding from the government, all the while leaving a trail of zombie victims pointing directly at them. They make it a small abandoned island and that is the happy ending.

Comment: Re: Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

In other words, your basic assumption is that people are morons.

But as I said earlier, people are NOT morons.

What you describe is the stuff of poorly written novels, not realism. People do NOT panic first and then act - accept in very specific circumstances.

In general, people only panic when a) they have never faced a situation before and b) no one has any idea what to do. But we know what to do against zombies, because we have seen the movies.

Comment: Re:Best idea is not to hide. (Score 1) 244

Still not a reasonable result. Disease does not coordinate the deaths. Elderly people die first. After the first couple of oldsters go zombie, and easily get destroyed by their nurses, word gets out and anyone near death gets handcuffed to a bed. When they can no longer speak, the healthy people kill them.

Humans outsmart the dumb zombies.

Comment: Re:The idea was a good one, the execution poor (Score 4, Interesting) 201

by gurps_npc (#49164923) Attached to: That U2 Apple Stunt Wasn't the Disaster You Might Think It Was
The basic problem was the mindset, technological capabilities, and trust.

If you give me your phone for 30 seconds, I can download software on it to let me track your location anytime I want to. Other people can download software to turn on the microphone and listen in without having the phone ring.

The only real difference between your cellphone and a spying device used to track you, listen to every word you say, is the software on it.

Just because all they CLAIMED to download was a 'free song' doesn't mean it really was a free song.

Doing the download indicates:

1. The ability to treat pwn your electronics at their convenience.

2. Weak morals, ethics and lack of respect for us such that they see nothing wrong with pwning our devices.

This is a matter of trust - and they proved they are not trustworthy.

Comment: The idea was a good one, the execution poor (Score 3, Interesting) 201

by gurps_npc (#49164627) Attached to: That U2 Apple Stunt Wasn't the Disaster You Might Think It Was
Ideally what should have happened was that every person that got it for free should have had a window pop with the free offer and asking permission to download it.

Not asking permission is theft. The playback devices are owned by their OWNERS, not the company that they connect with to download content. Pushing content onto it, rather than asking for permission to push content is stealing the playback device and using it for your own purposes.

No one likes someone stealing my electronics, even if they add give it right back after they fiddle with it.

Comment: Best idea is not to hide. (Score 4, Interesting) 244

The key thing about zombie attacks is:

1) Zombies are stupid

2) Humans rule the world because we are smart, not because we are strong, not because we are hard to kill, nor because we are numerous. One smart human with 30 minutes to prepare makes a spear and scares off a lion, wolf, or even a bear. Why? Because we are some sneaky, devious, son's of bitches that outwit enemies.

3) Everyone always says your average human can defeat one zombie in pretty much every single movie or book. the zombies only are scary in large numbers.

4) So please tell me how in the real world a single zombie can infect all the rest of us?

It simply can NOT happen. The zombies will have surprise on their side for maybe 10 hours - and that's assuming it turns zombie close to nightfall. But even then, the surprise won't last long.

Come the day after the zombie outbreak ends, they will all be dead. They will NEVER take an entire city. At best they might take over a small town/rural community before word gets out, and humans arm ourselves with spears, axes, shotguns, torches, etc. Yeah, a few new zombies would be created after the surprise wore off, but if 1 human kills on average 3 zombies before they themselves become a zombie, then the number of zombies would drop like a bar of lead dropped out of an airplane.

Zombies are the stuff of nightmare only for children and sick people. To a human in the prime of his life they are an excuse to have some violent fun.

Comment: Re:fees (Score 2) 388

If your description was accurate, I (and every one else would agree with you But unfortunately you are LYING about what Verizon etc. are doing.

Verizon is not demanding the right to charge you more for faster speed.

They are demanding the right to IGNORE the contract they made with you to provide X speed whenever the people you ask content for refuse to pay them for X speed.

Which is total Bullshit. They can't charge me for X speed and then turn around and say "Sorry, but that speed only applies to other people who pay us as well."

NO. That is fraud on their part. They are trying to use hidden clauses in the contract with their customers to do a bait and switch - advertising (and charging) for 60 megabits a second , then go around and give you only 30 megabits/second.

Comment: the best part of my job (Score 1) 153

by gurps_npc (#49147779) Attached to: Invented-Here Syndrome
Is writing code to properly format improperly formatted data.

Take idiots that put "GMT" or "MST" at the end of a time when our system (and most others) can't handle that crap.

The data was created by someone else. They most likely had the ability to export it in the correct way, but were too .... inexperienced .... to do it the right way.

Instead of trying to teach/convince them to do it right, I simply write a script to fix whatever bit of stupidity they created.

+ - Back to the Future's Hoverboard is HERE!->

Submitted by gurps_npc
gurps_npc (621217) writes "A company has started an Indiegogo campaign to raise money to build something they call an "airboard". Basically it is a souped-up, MORE powerful version of Marty's McFlyh;s hoverboard. Software limits how high above ground it can go and it has "power" as the movie says, so you don't need to push it with your feet. Yes, it's a bit bulkier and more expensive than the movie version, but maybe they can fix that on version 2.0."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Is that really a lot? (Score 1) 280

by gurps_npc (#49139643) Attached to: Drones Cost $28,000 Per Arrest, On Average
No the 28k does not include agency overhead. It only include drone overhead. There is a difference. Drone overhead means only charges related to the drone - repairs, service, etc. Agency overhead, includes things like the janitor,

You are correct that they need to reference things, but a simple bit of googling reveals enough reference to show that 28k per arrest is a ridiculously expensive number. The agency averages $12k/ per person DEPORTED. That means to arrest, hold them in prison, charge, convict and fly/bus them back across the border costs less than HALF the cost of just arresting them using a drone.

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.