Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:meanwhile overnight... (Score 1) 503

by flyingsquid (#47486325) Attached to: Russia Prepares For Internet War Over Malaysian Jet

Here's the current list of the top 5 most read articles on the New York Times:

1. Jetliner Explodes Over Ukraine; Struck by Missile, Officials Say

2. Obama Points to Pro-Russia Separatists in Downing of Malaysia Airlines Plane

3. Fallen Bodies, Jet Parts and a Child’s Pink Book

4. Maps of the Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

5. World Leaders Match Anger With Calls for Inquiry Into Ukraine Plane Crash

I'm going to really go out on a limb say that Putin has already lost the propaganda war here...

+ - CPAN as a webservice?

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Consider some very large software archive/library — e.g. http://openjsan.org/ (Javascript), http://rubygems.org/ (Ruby), http://cpan.org/ (Perl), http://mvnrepository.com/ (Java), http://pypi.python.org/ (Python), http://github.org/ (various). Lets say you want to automatically generate wrappers that enable remote subroutine invocation (say, some sort of web service call) for the majority of software in this library. What language would you target? Where would you start?

The aim here is a baby step towards language-agnostic reuse of code developed over decades at great collective effort.

My thoughts so far: the only code suitable for exposure are functions and methods that accept and return basic types (int, char, string) — or data structures or objects made up purely of basic types. Introspection/reflection capabilities in a language — including the ability to examine method signatures — are important. Languages like Perl (whose subroutine parameters passed in the @_ array, but without formal subroutine signatures) are a bit of a puzzle."

Comment: Not all that new, but what is personal? (Score 1) 206

by Myria (#47386655) Attached to: New Russian Law To Forbid Storing Russians' Data Outside the Country

As another pointed out, Russia isn't anywhere near the first country to do this; in fact, doesn't the European Union require it Union-wide?

Anyway, I'm most curious how the Kremlin defined "personal". Being that a lot of us are software industry programmers, product managers, etc., it'd be useful to know what kind of changes we need to make to our respective companies' international back-end infrastructure.

Comment: Re:What about range on this smaller car? (Score 2) 247

by flyingsquid (#47383557) Attached to: Tesla Aims For $30,000 Price, 2017 Launch For Model E

People will like the smaller car and lower price,but if it doesn't have the range... they will not flock to it...

A lot of families have more than one car. You could have a large, gasoline powered car to go visit Aunt Mabel or on a camping trip in the Grand Canyon, and a smaller electric car for commuting, runs to the supermarket, etc. The hope is that eventually electric vehicles will have the range, rapid recharge rate, and charging infrastructure that they can compete with and replace gas engines; in the meantime the technology may already be mature enough to compete in particular niches. The nature of disruptive technology is that it initially plays to its strengths and gets a foothold in a market where conventional technology does not perform as well, and as it improves it eventually moves in and takes over from the conventional technology.

That being said, we are a long way away from a fleet that is all-electric or even substantially electric. It's growing rapidly compared to where it was a few years ago (basically, no electric cars), but it's still a tiny segment of the automobile market. According to Wikipedia, .62% of all cars sold in 2013 were electric. Even if that were a much higher figure- say, one-third of all cars sold each year- the average car is around 10 years old. So assume we replace ten percent of the fleet every year, then it would take years to reach a fleet that was one-third electric. Internal combustion engines are not going to go away any time soon. Tesla's stock price is soaring but GM, Ford, and Chevrolet still sell a lot more internal combustion engines than Tesla sells electrics.

Comment: Re:Helpful Genes (Score 0) 133

by flyingsquid (#47377357) Attached to: Tibetans Inherited High-Altitude Gene From Ancient Human
They're both big-game hunters, but had a very different approach to it. Neanderthals had stabbing spears; they basically ran up to their prey and stabbed at it. The problem with this approach is that you have to get very close to the prey. It's hard to get close enough to a horse to kill it with a stabbing spear. It might be easier to get close to a slow-moving animal like a mammoth or wooly rhino, but then you face the problem that if it's in range of you, you're in range of the tusks/horns/feet. It's possible to kill large animals this way- saber-toothed cats did- but dangerous.

When Homo sapiens show up, they've got an entirely new technology- the atlatl, or spear-thrower. They can throw a dart 60 feet with enough force to impale a large animal. This means they don't need to get as close to strike. It also means that when they do strike, the prey can't hit back. The difference in build between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis seems to reflect this different hunting strategy. Neanderthals are short and stocky, like wrestlers. Homo sapiens are long and lanky, like basketball players. For the one, strength is key. For the other, speed, agility and long-distance throwing are key.

This may also explain the different effects that the two had on the fauna. When Neanderthals show up, we don't see any major extinctions. When Homo sapiens show up in Eurasia, we see the disappearance of mammoths, wooly rhinos, Irish elk, etc. The run-up-and-stab it hunting approach of Neanderthals wasn't that different from the hunting strategy of saber-toothed cats from the prey's standpoint. Raining sharp sticks of death down from dozens of meters away was radically different than anything the local fauna had ever faced before.

Comment: Re:Reputational Damage (Score 5, Funny) 346

by flyingsquid (#47377125) Attached to: Goldman Sachs Demands Google Unsend One of Its E-mails
So basically what happened is that someone started typing an email to "Joeblow@gs.com" and got as far as "Joeblow@g" before the autocomplete helpfully added "gmail.com". And then they hit "send". Through a combination of carelessness and cluelessness, this employee managed to put hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of customer funds at risk. Well, given what happened the last time Goldman made a mistake of this magnitude, it's clear that there's only one course of action for the company. And that's to give this employee a massive bonus.

Comment: Re: Sue them for all they're worth (Score 1) 495

by ScrewMaster (#47369997) Attached to: Microsoft Takes Down No-IP.com Domains
Actually, I read that the proceedings were _ex-parte_ ... No-IP wasn't even informed that there were any proceedings. Consequently they had zero chance to defend against this forfeiture. And that's exactly how Microsoft wanted it. There's more going on here than malware. My guess is that Microsoft's big media buddies want to use Microsoft as a front for domain seizures under cover of "protecting the public", without having to get their hands dirty or take any PR hits.

Comment: Re:perhaps a slice of crow for the US? (Score 5, Interesting) 86

by flyingsquid (#47361601) Attached to: Western Energy Companies Under Sabotage Threat
It's unquestionable that the U.S. has let this thing loose; the U.S. has perhaps the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities (at least in terms of offense) as any country on earth, having developed these weapons and techniques they can't complain too much if other countries start using them as well. However the idea is that cyberwarfare, just like conventional warfare, can and should be governed by a code of conduct. The idea would be that targets that would be considered off-limits to conventional attacks would also be off-limits to cyber-attacks. So it would be considered acceptable to attack the enemy's command-and-control network, their radars, their weapons systems, or military shipping and transport... but not to attack civilian infrastructure such as electricity, water supply, trains, banks, the stock market, etc. etc. So far, U.S. actions are consistent with this policy; we have attacked Iran's nuclear facilities but haven't tried to take down their banks or power plants, even though we probably could. You can see this policy in action where the U.S. recently accused a number of Chinese soldiers of engaging in cyberwarfare against the U.S. The issue wasn't that they engaged in cyberwarfare, which we expect the Chinese to do. It was that they were attacking civilian targets for corporate espionage, and the U.S. wanted to send a message that while they expect the military to be attacked by the Chinese, and it's a legitimate target, it's not OK to target U.S. companies.

In the current case, it would appear that Russia doesn't accept the U.S. argument that civilian infrastructure should be off-limits. Whether the U.S. can complain here or not is debatable. The U.S. has targeted civilian infrastructure during conventional operations; they knocked out the power in Serbia during actions in Kosovo, for example. So the Russians could easily argue- and not without merit- that if it's OK to take out the power in Serbia using a stealth bomber and a conventional bomb, it ought to be OK to turn out the lights in the U.S. using a logic bomb.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...