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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:It can be confusing... (Score 1) 555 555

I myself am out of date, so I need to beg off of specific numbers, but there is a third metric to consider here, power consumption. If the Intel is $50 more expensive, but the AMD consumes an extra 10W, and you pay for your electric bill, then there is a good chance that the Intel is actually cheaper to own. It's basically like gas mileage on cars.

Comment: Re:That's curious (Score 1) 141 141

We outsource to Russia at my office.

India probably has one of the most active software industries out there, but how many major Indian software products do you use on a daily basis? (Indian CEOs and branch offices don't count) If you're a global company, you tend to make the USA your HQ. It just makes sense given the dominance of the USA stock exchanges.

Also, there's a reason why Kaspersky doesn't have trouble hiring AV developers.

Comment: Re:False positive rate? (Score 1) 157 157

.3% false positive rate isn't bad but isn't great. However, you have to think of this approach as a technique rather than a solution. An effective anti-spam solution will combine several techniques, so the false-positive rate of any individual technique won't be enough to reject mail. Also, the penalty for flagging a mail as spam can be scored in a way that mail is not lost. For example, yahoo is notorious for flagging legitimate mail as spam, but generally delays the mail via greylisting instead of rejecting it outright.

When combined with other scoring mechanisms into an overall heuristic, .3% is tolerable as one tool in the box. However, my first impression is that this is at best an incremental improvement over an IP blacklist.

Comment: Re:Full Court Press (Score 2, Interesting) 895 895

Some of the tactics used by this researcher remind me of the full court press in basketball. The rules of basketball allow a full court press, yet to do so never crosses the mind of most players. Playing one side of the court at a time is convention. The full court press is extremely effective, yet if you use it, the other team will no doubt call your win "cheap".

Still, when you are the underdog, and must win at all costs, the press is your only option. I sympathize with those who use it (and recognize that it isn't easy to pull off either).

Full court presses are not considered "cheap". They just aren't used all the time because they are only effective under rare circumstances -- either when the offensive team is under a time crunch to move the ball across half court or score, or when weak ball handlers can be trapped and forced into a low-percentage pass.

Otherwise, trying to guard the entire court is not as effective as concentrating your defense in the half where the other team can score points. A full court press is hard because it is basically a man-to-man defence over the entire court, giving the offense plenty of room to maneuver and making it that much harder to double team or switch defensive assignments.

I think the full court press reference is "how david beat goliath". Basically, some guy who had never seen basketball had to coach for a league of 12 year old girls. The full tactic wasn't just full court press, it was 4 full quarters of full court press, at a level of play where no other team had the endurance necessary to sustain it. "How david beat goliath" is actually a pretty good analogy, as it came from a coach who was unfamiliar with social norms, felt that his job was to win at all costs, and received a lot of negative feedback for making the game not fun for other teams.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell

[We] use bad software and bad machines for the wrong things. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...