Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 339

by locketine (#48647287) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

DuckDodgers didn't know this and that's who I was responding to.

From a quick web search I found patents from HP covering IL optimizations so I'm not convinced that the giant patent infringement settlement between MS and Sun specifically covered the IL optimizations we're talking about.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 4, Interesting) 339

by locketine (#48644721) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

.Net also does dynamic and re-usable runtime optimizations. You can also instruct it to inline certain methods, load certain resources in the background that you expect to use but the runtime will do the same thing, just maybe not as intelligently. "Code Complete 2" has some code execution speed examples in it and most of them show C# running faster than Java; The author was comparing simple ops like method calls, conditionals, dictionaries, arrays, etc.

Comment: Re:Come on, you jackbooted apologists... (Score 1) 213

by locketine (#44763527) Attached to: One Strike Against No Fly List; More Scrutiny To Come

Says who? A lot of gun owners have t-shirts and stickers which say things like "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

They only read half of the sentence and assumed that was the complete second amendment. The full amendment reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It implies that they need to be a well regulated militia to have this right and in fact both the background for the amendment as well as early supreme court decisions show this to be the case. It's also clearly not saying unfettered access to arms, only that they can keep and bear arms; would anyone want a sociopath to have a nuclear bomb or automatic weapon anyways?

There's quite a bit of info on wikipedia about the amendment which is worth reading if you find this topic interesting:

Comment: Re:Which is false reality.. (Score 1) 111

by locketine (#44763291) Attached to: Software Brings Eye Contact To Video Chat, With a Little Help From Kinect

Only antisocial people are afraid of eye contact. It's normal for non-nerds to look eachother in the eyes, especially if they're friends. If they're enemies then yeah, eye contact is intimidating but not as intimidating as looking at the club you're going to beat them with. See wikipedia for more information:

Comment: Re:Forget ratings, measure ROI. (Score 1) 302

by locketine (#44651001) Attached to: Obama Seeks New System For Rating Colleges

You seem to be arguing against basic competitive economic theory. While your point seems logical the more likely case is that the low ROI colleges will starve until they lower their prices or increase graduation and post-education employment rates. I won't argue that the high ROI schools won't go down a bit once people start flocking to them for the best deal but to think the prices would only go up when people are given tools for finding the best schools doesn't make much sense.

Comment: responsible disclosure is a myth? (Score 1) 163

I think everything else you wrote was good but in the case of disclosing security attack vectors, letting everyone know or only letting hackers know, before giving the company a chance to fix the security hole results in a great many more hackers using the attack vector than if it had been reported without public disclosure. We have no idea who figured out the attack vector first, the researcher could very possibly be first, or be one of the first, to discover it. Do hackers always share attack vectors with other hackers immediately after finding them?

Security bugs are very different from functionality bugs and should not be compared. Similarly the disclosure of these bugs should follow different paths.

Comment: Re:big effing news (Score 1) 330

by locketine (#44088513) Attached to: US Hacked Chinese University Network

That article is mostly about the NSA's responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign communications. They didn't going into comsec as much as comsint. The CIA collects intelligence through non communication interception methods such as infiltration, espionage, etc. All of our intelligence agencies have some degree of overlap but intercepting and decrypting communications is a primary responsibility of the NSA, not the CIA, as confirmed by your own source.

EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER