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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:= $912,000,000,000 (Score 0) 244

by hermitdev (#48882049) Attached to: Dish Network Violated Do-Not-Call 57 Million Times
There's another part that I didn't bring up: Dish will be fined. But, where does that money go? To the people impacted by their acts? No. It will disappear into the fed government somewhere. Whatever fines are collected should be distributed to the people that they violated - and I'm not one of them.

Comment: Re:Nobody read the law, huh? (Score 1) 322

Fair enough, I did read it several times, but managed to miss, each time, the "and require" part under Section 15. I'd suggest that it wouldn't withstand a challenge under the 4th or 5th Amendments, but seeing as how the SCOTUS has previously ruled the 1st Amendment doesn't (always) apply during public school, I'm not sure how well that would fare.

Comment: Re:Nobody read the law, huh? (Score 1) 322

I don't follow your interpretation of the law you linked to.

Section 10. Prohibited inquiry. (a) It is unlawful for a post-secondary school to request or require a student or his or her parent or guardian to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to the student's account or profile on a social networking website or to demand access in any manner to a student's account or profile on a social networking website.

That seem's pretty straight forward: it is unlawful to request or require dissemination of a password.

What I suspect you object to is this:

(2) monitor usage of the post-secondary school's electronic equipment and the post-secondary school's electronic mail without requesting or requiring a student to provide a password or other related account information in order to gain access to the student's account or profile on a social networking website.

What I read this to mean (and I'm not a lawyer, of course), is without approval or consent, they may monitor school-provided equipment and provided email. i.e., if you utilize your school's email service, they may read that at will, without your consent. Note the possessive in "post-secondary school's electronic mail". This seems pretty plain to me they are not allowed to monitor, say your gmail access (unless they have a man-in-the-middle setup and you access it utilizing the school's network, read: electronic equipment).

Comment: Re:Nobody read the law, huh? (Score 1) 322

As an Illinois resident, I read through it several times, just on the chance I missed something. Like you, I see no where that anyone, either the victim or the accused are being compelled to provide even so much as a screen name, let alone full on credentials for any sort of account. Another misleading click-bait headline just to rile everyone up.

Comment: Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 322

I could get behind this, but I'd go one step further: include lawyers whose suits are tossed out for being frivolous. 3 lawsuits tossed for being frivolous (not necessarily for without merit, lacking standing or losing), and you're disbarred, never to practice law again.

Comment: Re:Slashdot stance on #gamergate (Score 3, Funny) 686

by hermitdev (#48862461) Attached to: Doxing Victim Zoe Quinn Launches Online "Anti-harassment Task Force"
I think "Crash Override" is an extremely poor choice of names. I mean, who in the community doesn't know 1995's "Hackers"? Johnny Lee Miller's character had a handle "Crash Override". He spent the entire movie trying to get into Angelina Jolie's character's pants (and succeeded), and he (the actor) married Jolie in real life, if only for a few years. If you want to talk "messages", what does choosing such a moniker for this movement represent? At its best, willful ignorance (which I doubt) or an alternate purpose, which then begs the question of for what? I'm not going to go so far to say Quinn is either stupid or ignorant, so that again beg's the question: why "Crash Override"?

Comment: Re:Problems in C++ (Score 4, Informative) 382

by hermitdev (#48861701) Attached to: Is D an Underrated Programming Language?

Dude, don't use square brackets with STL arrays and vectors, just to make your code more readable. The [] operator skips bounds checking, which is the main reason for using these classes in the first place. At() is the proper methodology to use in pretty much every case, unless you are so confident in your bounds that its worth the trivial speed increase in access time.

This is usually just plain wrong. I have extremely seldom ever seen "at" used in production code. Why? Because it's usually duplicating a bounds check you've already done. If you're going to naively randomly access a location into a vector without checking if it's within bounds, sure, but that's kind of a nasty smell (also, are you handling the exception that may/will occur?). Most vector accesses occur something like looping from 0 until (but not including size), or using begin/end (either the free functions or the members). At best, the optimizer might be able to deduce you're never modifying the size of the vector during a loop and elide the repeated bounds check. At worst, you're evaluating "if ((_M_end - _M_start) <= i) throw std::out_of_range();" on every iteration.

Regarding point #4, forward declarations aren't to save compilation time or declare linkage. Yes, they can be used to do both, but the prime function is to, well, declare a name and just enough information to be somewhat useful before it is used (i.e. reduce very simple otherwise circular-references). I can forward-declare 'struct A', but I cannot instantiate/allocate it until it is defined (need to know the size, layout, etc.). You can declare a pointer to 'struct A', because well, you know the size of the pointer. Same reason you can't define "struct A { struct A a; };", but you can define "struct A {struct A* p_a; };".

Regarding "#ifdefs", yeah, there shouldn't really be a need for them in this day and age, but they won't go away due to legacy code. If you removed them, you'd break every single codebase in the world. Not going to happen. Additionally, due to the historical lack of variadic macros, there are numerous libraries that rely upon multiple inclusion of the same header to fake variadic macros. If you assumed a "#pragma once", you'd break various Boost libraries as well as even some STL implementations. Headers guarded with ifdef's can only safely be precompiled and reused if any and all preprocessor defines referenced are identical across all usages and inclusion order of every & all predecessor headers is exactly the same for all usages, otherwise you very well may violate the one-definition-rule.

Comment: Re:No, it's not. (Score 1) 220

by hermitdev (#48772515) Attached to: EFF: Apple's Dev Agreement Means No EFF Mobile App For iOS
Petition sites such as change.org or even the White House's site are not democratic in nature and they should not be construed as "votes" from the voting populace. First, there is no guarantee the signatures are valid or even from the US. Second, there is no mechanism to vote against, or to otherwise say something to the effect of "no, I think this is a bad idea". So, you only measure the yeas, but have no meter of the nays. For argument sake, and assuming rough numbers: White House is requiring 250,000 signatures to consider a petition? US estimated 2013 population is 316,128,839. So, that ends up being 0.079% of the population needs to ascent to the petition to be considered, with no way to voice countering options or dissent, except with an opposing petition. Personally, I think a better mechanism would be a vote up/down mechanism and consider the net. Yes, I recognize only recording the yeas is the very nature of a petition, but I think the way these petitions are being represented is more as an opinion poll of what *everyone* wants, which is not true. If that's how you're going to represent it, you should give everyone an opportunity to actually express their view, not just that of those that are reinforcing your opinion/view.

Comment: Re:C versus Assembly Language (Score 1) 226

by hermitdev (#48742643) Attached to: Red Hat Engineer Improves Math Performance of Glibc
I, personally, define bad code (in this context), from the perspective of code generated by the compiler, as code that does not perform in an expected manner as dictated by the higher-level language lacking any sort of unspecified or undefined behavior failing to produce the expected result. In a most ridiculous example, if I had int i = 3 * 7; printf("%d", i); and anything other than 21 was output, there's some bad code present. Suboptimal does not mean bad or erroneous, if it produces the correct result. Suboptimal but correct would be a target for manual inline assembly optimization, if it is sufficiently inefficient. Bad with incorrect result might also be a target for manual assembly if a resolution from the compiler vendor could not be completed, or would otherwise be unfeasible.

All theoretical chemistry is really physics; and all theoretical chemists know it. -- Richard P. Feynman