Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Things are starting to turn around (Score 1) 303

Schooling time

I am disappointed at the quality of open source software - especially pieces as famous and fundamental as OpenSSL, and I agree, that open source's claimed advantage of there being "thousands of eyeballs" verifying its correctness is overblown.

I cant decide - am I looking at an intentional misrepresentation, or a facepalm-worthy senior moment? Linus' Law had nothing to do with verifying code. From Wikipedia,

The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

Comment Re:Patrons (Score 2) 63

No, there isn't a saying.
The tradition in law is that the existence of an exception may be used to infer a rule - e.g. "No Parking: 4pm - 6pm" means that parking IS permitted at other times. Mr. Torvalds may be considered unusual, but his efforts are not part of (or exception to) any rule I can think of, except maybe "being polite and rude consistently gest things done in the long term"

Comment Where did the AC lie? (Score 1) 273

Putting a name behind it should have no influence on the validity of the case being made. Most people can't tell BS from truth on this topic, but they can usually spot a personal attack, like the one I'm going to make on you because you're advocating polluted discourse. So fuck you, you fucking fuck.

There, I stooped to your level for a moment. I'm not proud, but you can't call me on it without dissing your own worthless argument. Now, back to rational discussion: Where did the AC lie?

Comment Re:Command Line Not Necessary (Score 3, Insightful) 606

No. Argument ad homenium is not needed.

It's got nothing to do with the arrogance or competence of the builders. GUIs tend to suck at automation because of the assumption that each interface, when presented, shall be manipulated by a human. This assumption is a reasonable one, and destroys automation before you start - the best you can hope for is applying the presented default after a timeout period, which makes for exceptionally slow progress. Automation that needs constant human intervention is (and I'll be kind here) not automation.

Comment Re:Answer your own question, Slashdot! (Score 1) 382

I see no hypocrisy - the page was never intended to be static text with no records outside of access.log. Javascript is not presented as a bad idea, but a frequently used piledriver where paperweights normally suffice. The claw hammer on that page seems appropriate.

Comment Re:In exchange for privacy? WHA? (Score 1) 121

If ever you have a future need to step out from the herd and speak against the elite in favour of justice or truth (or anything at all that said future elite don't like), that tracking provides myraid opportunities for your voice to be discredited if you show signs of getting any significant traction.
The thought police don't have to send helicopters. You have given them the remote controls for your suicide belt.

Comment Re:very understandable (Score 1) 784

You're full of shit.
Most medicines are generally prescribed for one condition, so the pharmacist doesn't have to be any kind of clever to make a good guess what condition you've been diagnosed with. But it's still a guess. If your doctor is actually doing this, though, report them to the local college of physicians.

Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 1216

Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy. After all, it is not the CEO's who own corporations, but the shareholders. As such, it is the shareholders who ultimately decide upon the pay of the CEO. If the owners of a company decide that it is in the company's best interest to entice the top executives with $x, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Contrary to popular belief, the only way this is possible in the long run, is if the executive actually brings that worth to the corporation. These sorts of laws will *not* bring up the wage of the workers just so that the executives can be paid more; after all, the most an employee can be paid without the company losing money is the discounted marginal value product that he or she brings to the company.

There's another way this is possible in the long run - don't pay the rank and file members what they're worth.

This is easy because the negotiating process between a corporation and a potential staffer is rarely an exchange between equals. The rank and file are most often absolutely not in a position to negotiate a fair wage or salary.

The nicest thing about the Alto is that it doesn't run faster at night.

Working...