Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Ho-lee-crap (Score 2) 263

by putaro (#48186175) Attached to: The Largest Ship In the World Is Being Built In Korea

Part of the long build time may simply be to keep the shipyard in business over a longer term. After all, it's not like you can pop out a ship and send everyone home for a couple of years while waiting for the next contract. Building to the pace of the contract acquisition lets you keep your skilled workers on the job.

Comment: Re:Ob (Score 1) 229

by putaro (#48147325) Attached to: The Subtle Developer Exodus From the Mac App Store

The sandbox is a stupid idea.

The reason given for it is to prevent exploitable code. This makes sense on a system that is running in multi-user mode where a non-admin user is trying to escalate to admin and will try any exploits available to do so. This doesn't make sense on a single-user system where the user is running the apps and any exploit that is being targeted would be automated. It doesn't make sense to automate exploits for apps that have a small user base so sandboxing is silly for the majority of App Store apps. It tries to close a door that no one would exploit. It makes sense to sandbox apps like Safari (the web browser) or iTunes or TextEdit or any of the other apps that are installed on every system.

What sandboxing is really for is to allow Apple to sell software and vouch for it without doing any work in terms of vetting either the vendors or the code. To date this has been successful because no one has really tried to break out of the sandbox. However, given the number of exploits that tend to exist in any code base, the odds that there is an exploit somewhere in the sandbox system is pretty high. Sooner or later someone will distribute malware via the App Store and the sandbox is going to be shown to simply be crap.

Comment: Re:Questiona re a bit sexists (Score 2) 445

by gmack (#48129951) Attached to: Statisticians Uncover What Makes For a Stable Marriage

I'm more interested in the "churchgoing" thing. It flies in the face of studies that show atheists don't have very different odds of getting divorced, whereas conservative Christians have higher divorce rates. Maybe the actual atheists are buried in a larger population of people that are nominally religious but don't go to church. I can see how the latter might be an interesting subgroup of religious people. These are people that think something is important but don't do it anyway. Atheists might be a lot more like the unfiltered population of religious people in that they are neither more nor less likely to do things they regard as important.

You have hit the nail on the head. There is a massive group of self identifying Christians who never attend church and never read the bible for themselves but call themselves Christians because their parents (or some family in the past) were Christians and since they outnumber Christians take their faith seriously, it has produced a lot of statistical noise and now we see clumsy attempts like this to work around the problem.

Comment: Re:One example doesn't make an "always" (Score 1) 716

by k8to (#48114253) Attached to: Why the Trolls Will Always Win

You have to show that the information is intended to cause harm as the intent, and it generally has to be false. This means that a lot of things that get called libel in the UK aren't in the US (typically things that are true!).

It also means the burden of demonstration in the US is quite high. Demonstrating intent is in some cases quite difficult.

In this sort of case, the intent is fairly easy to show, and the reckless disregard for the veracity along with the falseness is easy to show. However the cost of prosecution to the individual is prohibitive, and the actors are frequently legion by the time the problem becomes big.

Comment: Still a dumb idea (Score 0) 180

by putaro (#48113879) Attached to: CSS Proposed 20 Years Ago Today

Yeah, all the CSS lovers will pile on. Have a party. I still think CSS is a stupid idea.

1) Cascading. What the F? In order to figure out what is going on I have to work back through all the cascaded sheets to figure out what's going on
2) "Separation of content and presentation" Yeah, that's a great idea, but not in HTML. HTML *is* a presentation layer. Who writes content in plain jane HTML? Idiots, that's who. Everyone else writes in something else (Markdown, XML) and compiles to HTML.. CSS is a negative there.
3) CSS syntax is completely unrelated to HTML syntax. Thanks a lot

It still sucks.

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid