Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Production Values (Score 1) 40

by maeglin (#42631349) Attached to: A Chat With USENIX Community Manager Rikki Endsley (Video)

The 60's called. It wants your attitudes back.

Holy crap! It also wants your knee jerk howls of misogyny back, too.
1. The video is clearly not flattering. 2. Her selection of eye wear certainly gives the appearance that she has at least a passing interest in being fashionable. Therefore: 3. If she wants to look more glamorous in these things in the future she should pony up for a better camera. Drop a trendy male in the situation and I'd say the same thing. Why go out of your way to make specific statement about how you present yourself and then ruin it with poor technology? This seems particularly bad for someone who's supposed to be a spokesperson for technology. Oh, I'm sorry, we can't talk about appearances anymore can we? If I just stop wearing pants any more at least I'll still get the blue participation ribbon for showing up to work.

Comment: Re:Production Values (Score 0, Flamebait) 40

by maeglin (#42619971) Attached to: A Chat With USENIX Community Manager Rikki Endsley (Video)

Is this a laptop camera on the desk? Whose idea was it to shoot up the poor woman's nose?

I would assume it was hers as it appears to be a recording of her side of a video call with some crappy transitions sprinkled in. If she wants to look more glamorous in these things in the future (which she may be interested in if the glasses are any indication) then she should do her interviews in person or pony up for a decent USB / IP camera.

Comment: Re:Uhmmm.... so? (Score 1) 51

by maeglin (#42552039) Attached to: Foxconn Accused of Taking Bribes

There is absolutely nothing wrong, or even particularly shameful about accepting a bribe, unless you are accepting it in exchange for a favor that is illegal or otherwise considered unethical.

Huh? If party A (entrusted with a duty by party B) takes money from party C and then makes a decision on behalf of party B based on that money rather than what is best for B, then it is an conflict of interest and it is unethical.

If party C pays party A to encourage a decision by A acting as an agent of A only, then it is not a conflict of interest and is not unethical. It's also not called a bribe.

So, in order to make a bribe ethical it's got to not be a bribe.

Comment: Re:Air dates (for those asking where the vid is) (Score 1) 98

by maeglin (#42509199) Attached to: Giant Squid Filmed In Natural Habitat For the First Time

Don't forget the intro, the teaser, the coming next, the recap EVERY 5 minutes so that even an American can keep up... well... the bright ones... I give it about 5 years and the TV will be just a static picture with one word repeated "BUY BUY BUY".

"BUY BUY BUY"

buy, buy, buy...

5520-3245-4211-0498 12/15 CVV 102

That is all. I must go watch reality TV now.

Comment: Re:I call... (Score 1) 285

by maeglin (#42455287) Attached to: Campaign To Remove Paper From Offices

We are getting a new CRM, ERP software which should allow us to go mostly paperless.(figure cut down by 2/3rds) however that is going to cost us $100,000 in software, and who knows how much else in training fees.

In the end it will be worth it as we can streamline other areas of operations. and we ditch a giant headache of ERP system that we are currently dealing with.

Wow! I really enjoy your positive attitude. I wish I had the same outlook.

Based on my experience I'd say that what you're really going to end up with is: the same or more paper, one partially used CRM system, two incompatible ERPs and a smaller bonus as the $100,000 sales estimate starts drifting toward the $500,000-$1M range as more and more consultants are frantically brought in to save someone's career aspirations.

Like I said, I wish I had the same outlook as you, but I don't.

Comment: Re:Who cares? (Score 3, Insightful) 309

by maeglin (#42441607) Attached to: What Could Have Been In the Public Domain Today, But Isn't

Or we could ask the copyright holder to release it under such license. No need to force anyone.

Copyright is misnamed. It's not a right granted to an individual, it's a restriction placed on everyone else. It may make sense to restrict 5,999,999,999 people for the benefit of one person for a limited time. But, using your stellar logic, why force anyone to do something they don't want to do? The author chose to create something, everyone else is being forced. No need to force anyone, right?

Comment: Re:6 months? (Score 1) 311

by maeglin (#42389201) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Android Apps For Kids Under 12 Months?

Wishy-washy. You argue against one point and go on to support that very point. Make up your mind.

False dichotomy: Allowing a child to play with a gadget does not require parental abandonment any more than allowing them to play with a stuffed animal does. Any inconsistency or deviation between my two posts was only possible with the application of creative editing which is why I re-quoted the full context. I'm sorry if the real world doesn't match up with your sound-bite sized, pseudo-elite notions of "good" parental practices.

Of course, unless you're just a troll, then shame on me for biting.

Comment: Re:6 months? (Score 1) 311

by maeglin (#42388631) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Android Apps For Kids Under 12 Months?

See, the thing is, you can't just power off a baby when the park closes or it's raining or snowing outside. Yes, you shouldn't have your child fixate on blinky things for hours on end. You know what else you don't do? Plop a six month old child in snow bank for 8 hours.

Use your imagination. Taking your child to the park is an example of ONE thing out of many that you could be doing that is better than handing them a tablet and forgetting about them. Read with them, do arts and crafts with them or any of dozens of other things that promotes health and well-being.

At what point did I advocate forgetting about them for hours on end?

Was it here:

stick with them to make sure they're safe and have someone to turn to when *they* want social time. After a little time with activity X you encourage them to move on to something else.

Holy crap! It looks like I said the exact opposite.

You allow them to explore, see what they want to see, play with what they want to play with

The definition of a bad parent is one who does this. The child does not decide what they want to do when they are that young, that is for the parents to decide.

Of course, you would be aware of all this if you were an actual parent instead of a self-appointed child development expert.

And you're another irresponsible moron who should never have had children because you obviously cannot or will not care for them.

Again with the context:

You allow them to explore, see what they want to see, play with what they want to play with (with the exception of knives and guns) and stick with them to make sure they're safe and have someone to turn to when *they* want social time. After a little time with activity X you encourage them to move on to something else.

Strange, it's almost as if you keep taking things out of context on purpose. Either that or you're saying only a bad parent stays with their child, keeps them safe and encourages them to try many activities? Hmm... Strange either way.

Some day I hope you become aware of the fact that children are, at all ages, actually human beings who need to learn both through exploration as well as guidance and not be placed in a cage with "approved content." But, hey, worst case, you'll only be messing up your own kids so it's not really a problem for me if you don't.

Comment: Re:6 months? (Score 0) 311

by maeglin (#42388239) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Android Apps For Kids Under 12 Months?

I know the article submitter is proud that they have a child and thinks that their special little baby is the smartest and cutest thing in the world, but objectively speaking, that child is no different than any other. Getting him/her started on a tablet at this time isn't going to do anything but harm them.

Just like every other poster on /. thinks that they are better parents than everyone else.

Basically stop worrying about getting your infant baby on a tablet and spend time with them. Take them out to the park or something. The tablet can wait until they are 6 years or older.

See, the thing is, you can't just power off a baby when the park closes or it's raining or snowing outside. Yes, you shouldn't have your child fixate on blinky things for hours on end. You know what else you don't do? Plop a six month old child in snow bank for 8 hours.

You allow them to explore, see what they want to see, play with what they want to play with (with the exception of knives and guns) and stick with them to make sure they're safe and have someone to turn to when *they* want social time. After a little time with activity X you encourage them to move on to something else.

Of course, you would be aware of all this if you were an actual parent instead of a self-appointed child development expert.

As to the original post: It doesn't matter. Leave it on the lock screen and let her play with the unlock widget.. and make sure it's clean because it'll end up in her mouth anyway (and tablets are pretty nasty). Take it away after a few minutes and don't give it back until the next day. There'll be crying involved but it's okay: you're the boss.

Comment: Re:How is this sort of crypto supposed to work? (Score 1) 123

by maeglin (#42343815) Attached to: South Carolina Shows How Not To Do Security

Each additional level of obscurity beyond that raises the time and knowledge required to locate, understand and decrypt the data.

So... what you're advocating is literally security through obscurity?

Here's a question for you: Name one security technique that doesn't rely on obscurity in some form. Everything I can think that has actually implemented depends on large numeric search spaces, large physical search spaces (brass keys for example), a one time pad (needs to be hidden), steganography, etc. Security and obscurity go hand-in-hand. It is simply unfortunate that obscurity got a bad name along the way for some reason.

But, ultimately, I'm advocating not throwing away security just because it isn't perfect. You may not need the baby, but the bathwater might still be useful.

Comment: Re:Patents = Usury (Score 2, Insightful) 121

by maeglin (#42343533) Attached to: The Mark Cuban Chair To Eliminate Stupid Patents

Facts is 99.9% of the time and more patents work, I doubt that there is any product you own which doesn't involve at least 2-100 patents either in the products themselves or in the manufacturing processes, you just never hear about them.

Isn't what you just said proof that patents don't work? Who other than the entrenched have the resources to identify the 2-100 arbitrary patents that apply to any given product? How is this environment supposed to move innovation forward when it is set up in favor of those who are already sitting in the innovation-limiting "cash cow" stage of their respective businesses?

Who is going to invest millions into R&D time and time again knowing others will simply take the fruits of your labours for free and profit from it.

I dunno.. Maybe people who understand the concepts of first to market, trade secrets, quality of implementation and brand value and don't just hide behind naive assumptions about the need for legal protection of basic ideas?

Comment: Re:this is like open source, but with money (Score 2) 117

by maeglin (#42338823) Attached to: Kodak Patents Sold for $525 Million

Who cares. You don't like it? Make your own tech and release it to the public domain.

Nice troll but you can't really do that without some level of fear if you can't afford a patent attorney. In this environment every Open Source / PD developer is sitting on a huge legal risk even if they were first to develop and are going to be backed by no one except maybe the EFF if the trolls come knocking.

Are the odds great that you'll be sued into oblivion? Not necessarily. Is it unreasonable that someone who is altruistically donating their time to the greater good should fear reprisals from greedy IP barons sitting on piles of obvious patents? Yes, absolutely.

The system is broken. You don't like it? Maybe you should contribute something yourself instead of posting bullshit on /.

Comment: Re:How is this sort of crypto supposed to work? (Score 2) 123

by maeglin (#42301437) Attached to: South Carolina Shows How Not To Do Security

Even if the SSNs had been encrypted, the application running on the server still needs access to the SSNs, which means it needs the keys with which the SSNs are encrypted. So anybody who compromises the server on which the application is run, or any machine authorized to connect to that server and view SSNs, compromises the SSNs.

That is not an excuse not to encrypt. Encrypting data and putting the key in a file called encryption.key would be sufficient to stop casual perusal of the data. Each additional level of obscurity beyond that raises the time and knowledge required to locate, understand and decrypt the data. Most people are out for a quick win and are not interested in reverse engineering your architecture.

Conversely, if someone knows what they want, where it is and what is necessary to get it then you've got a problem that goes week beyond key management.

Comment: Re:American Exceptionalism (Score 1) 2987

by maeglin (#42292347) Attached to: 27 Reported Killed In Connecticut Elementary School Shooting

227 killed in mass shooting incidents in 13 years
10,228 killed in drunk driving accidents in 2010 alone

2,437,163 died in 2009 alone simply because they were alive.

Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Shit, it almost seems like we should focus on physical and mental health care instead of dumping time, energy and money into everyone's pet "crisis" du jour.

Comment: Re:Funny (Score 5, Insightful) 82

by maeglin (#42193211) Attached to: Google's Schmidt: Patent Wars Harm Startups

You're looking at a startup as a single person or partners that share the pay from the buyout. What about the people that worked tirelessly at the small company but may not get a cut in the cash?

You're also believing that the #1 motivator for everyone is money. Many would like to see their baby grow and see the impact it can make on the world. Invent a cure for cancer, take the payoff and walk away without ever getting to see how it changes the world.

What about the people who worked tirelessly for RIM, Nokia, Diamond, Pets.com, Silicon Graphics (the real version), the HP calculator team, Commodore / Amiga, SEGA and Atari (again, the real version)? Who was or is looking out for them? Absolutely no one. At least if a founder gets bought out some jobs will transfer, some will move on to the next start-up with the same guy and the rest simply share the same fate as countless people who have poured their souls into ventures of many sizes and then have been left with nothing but a final paycheck.

One of many reasons that older employees don't constantly invest 18 hours a day for an 8 hour paycheck is because they have seen the result of not being an equity holder of the effort when the payday comes. If you're working a job as a wage earner and you think the 2 year "sprint" is going to pay off -- think again.

If you don't want to sell your baby.. Don't.

Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him. - Fyodor Dostoevski

Working...