Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: But they ignore experienced devs who sent patches (Score 1) 258

by raymorris (#49752667) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Career Advice For an Aging Perl Developer?

It's too bad that when you have 10+ years of experience and your cover letter mentions that they are already using patches you've sent them over the years, they completely ignore you.

One issue I fixed for them was particularly "entertaining". I sent them a note mentioning a problem. They replied saying basically "yes, we are aware of that problem, but we're not sure how to fix it, so it may take quite a while". A few minutes I replied back with a fixed version of their file, which I was using for our customers. Soon after they released an update with my fix.

So it took me a few minutes to solve a CPanel bug that they couldn't figure out. Then I send them a resume and crickets.

Comment: Harder: self-stabilizing parachute, or balance on (Score 5, Funny) 476

by raymorris (#49739841) Attached to: The Brainteaser Elon Musk Asks New SpaceX Engineers

The harder brainteaser they SHOULD ask:

A large, cylindrical object is falling. You want it to land upright, with the correct end down. Which of these strategies do you choose:
a) Attach a parachute to the nose and let basic physics work.
b) Try to balance it atop rocket engines firing from the bottom.

Comment: Proprietary, not open source (Score 4, Insightful) 69

The buggy software is not open source. It is proprietary. I'll FTFY, updating your post to reflect that it's proprietary software:

Another day another MASSIVE security problem caused by proprietary software. I cannot wait for this shitty industry of crappy software written by crappy programmers hired by managers focused purely on profit to die the death it so richly deserves. This is going into my yearly talk I give at the local compsci department about why proprietary software should be SHUNNED, not embraced, by up and coming programmers. Not only does it cost us JOBS and INCOME potential, it demonstrably results in WORSE software.

Comment: DD-WRT no. Vuln. if proprietary & shares webca (Score 2) 69

The vulnerable module appears to be proprietary, not open source, so dd-wrt and other open source firmware wouldn't include it.

If you have a router or similar device with a USB port which can be used to share USB printers and webcams, it's vulnerable. Sharing of USB STORAGE is done differently.

Comment: agreed . 18 years in infosec here (Score 2) 150

I've been doing infosec for 18 years and fully agree. Forcing people to change passwords simply forces them to increment a number at the end or write them down. It also forces you to allow more failures in your brute force detection.

With pass phrases, it's mostly about using LONG ones. Yeah, pass phrases, not passwords. Then make damn sure your not using des hashes or something else that truncates passwords anywhere.

Comment: a dictionary might help you (Score 1) 335

by raymorris (#49730539) Attached to: Stock Market Valuation Exceeds Its Components' Actual Value

You might find a dictionary helpful for understanding the difference between subjective and objective and the difference between melting and pressure sintering.

The percentage of gold in an alloy is an OBJECTIVE measurement. The beauty of a diamond's color is SUBJECTIVE. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

You might also look up MELTING vs PRESSING. Tungsten powder is NOT melted to make jewelry or other objects. Rather, it's mixed 50/50 with carbon powder, then subjected to extreme pressure in the mold. It holds together the same way a snowball holds together. You don't melt snow to make a snowball, you press it. Tungsten carbide is formed the same way. As you correctly noted, tungsten carbide (which is only half tungsten) can't be scratched, or bent, or cut. (Except diamonds can scratch it.) It's pretty difficult to make things out of a metal that you can't cut, drill, bend, or file. It's used occasionally when extreme hardness is required, but 99.99% of metal objects aren't made from tungsten because most things CAN'T be. Most metal manufacturing requires drilling, or milling, or threading, or bending or ... . You can't do any of that stuff with tungsten.

Comment: Diamonds have subjective cut, color, clarity. Divi (Score 1) 335

by raymorris (#49729373) Attached to: Stock Market Valuation Exceeds Its Components' Actual Value

> So enlighten us why not hold diamonds? They are shiney and last forever too.

May people do hold diamonds as investments / stores of value, but diamonds have several subjective properties which effect their value. See color, cut, and clarity. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold, it's completely fungible. Not so with diamonds.

Also, if you have an ounce of gold and you sell half, you still have half the value left. If you have a one carat diamond and you cut it in half, you just destroyed much of the value. They aren't as readily divisible. Primarily, though, it's the subjective value factors - one 1 carat diamond might be worth ten times as much as another.

Re tungsten oxide filaments, look up William D. Coolidge. He developed a complicated multi-step process to pound tungsten oxide (tungsten rust) powder into bits of wire. It's not useful for much else, though - notice how easily it breaks. The difference between tungsten metal and tungsten oxide is the same as the difference between iron metal and iron oxide (iron rust). You can make engines, cars, and wrenches from iron. Try making these things from rust.

Comment: also doesn't break, as any *smith knows (Score 1) 66

Also, as anyone who makes things (any things) knows, sharp corners have thin edges, which break, get dinged up and worn down. Chamfering edges and corners makes them last longer. It's also easier to mold, and to make molds - you can use a rotating mill bit rather than hand-chiseling.

Comment: Gold has value because it doesn't corrode, it last (Score 1) 335

by raymorris (#49721951) Attached to: Stock Market Valuation Exceeds Its Components' Actual Value

> But gold only has value because it's rare and shiny,

Gold has value because it's virtually the only useful metal that doesn't corrode. There are objects made 10,000 years ago that still look pretty much new because they are gold. Steel lasts maybe 1-30 years, depending on the environment. Copper even less. Aluminum corrodes almost instantly, but it's a very thin layer of corrosion at first, so it's okay for many uses.

Tungsten carbide can't be bent, molded, or cut, so it's not particularly useful, though it doesn't corrode.

Comment: agreed, except corporations have privileges, not (Score 1) 103

by raymorris (#49709343) Attached to: House Science Committee Approves Changes To Space Law

You're not wrong. Not too much, anyway. :) I may not have made my point clear, though. This is what I'm talking about:

> People create governments and governments create corporations, therefore corporations have what rights we say they have and nothing more.

Because politicians can grant certain privileges to people and corporations, and can take thos privileges away, they are not rights. That's the difference between rights and privileges. By definition, rights are inherent, they can be violated but cannot be revoked. Privileges can be granted or revoked, rights can recognized, violated, or protected, but not granted. They pre-exist.

Corporations, therefore have no rights themselves. PEOPLE may have a right of association, which may mean that the people have a right to come together as Electronic Freedom Foundation Inc. to take cooperative (corporate) action. That's the right of people to work together toward a common cause. The EFF is merely a mechanism the people use to exercise their rights, it can have no rights of it's own.

The decision the court had to make was more difficult than many realize. If you and several like-minded individuals come together, do you lose your first amendment rights? Does a crowd of protesters no longer have rights because they joined a crowd? Do the members of the Occupy organization have a right to print pamphlets? Clearly you disagree with decision. You think that people don't have a right to form Occupy Inc for the purpose of making videos and posting them online. Some people disagree, and reasonable people can disagree on this question.

  It seems to me that one side focuses on the logic and the other on the effect, alomg with their feelings about that effect. Some pay attention to exactly what question is being asked "does exercising the right of free association strip you of your right of free speech?" When you look only at the question, one answer is clear - people SHOULD be able to get together and make a video expressing their point of view. Others focus on "a group of people who disagree with me wanted to get together as a recognized group (corporation) and make a video that I don't agree with. This could effect an election in a way I don't like." If you focus on the fact that this organised group of people (corporation) disagrees with you, it's much easier to say they shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech together, as a group.

Comment: you knew asm, which vastly improves your C (Score 1) 368

I'm not the least bit surprised that an assembly programmer, who really understands what's happening in the CPU, can write very fast C. I bet for most software, your asm version will be at least twice as fast as a C version written by a typical programmer, who doesn't even realize that the CPU caches have any effect on how well their software runs. More to the point, the typical C programmer would never think about how writing their code differently might allow the inner loop to run from cpu cache. Hell, the typical C# programmer doesn't often even think about the fact that memory is thousands of times faster than disk.

I wouldn't suggest writing much in asm, but being ABLE to do so, having a clue what your C or .NET code may end up looking like in asm, is a huge advantage.

Comment: pedantic: govt can protect or violate rights, not (Score 0) 103

by raymorris (#49704329) Attached to: House Science Committee Approves Changes To Space Law

> a right granted by the power of the US government

I'm off topic, but government can protect rights or violate rights, it can't GRANT rights. That's a key part,of the definition of a right, vs a privilege or desire. (Therefore there is no RIGHT to have a corporation recognized by the state.)

Consider the right to free speech, the right to talk. That does not mean you're allowed to say whatever the government bureaucrats want you to say, or that you're allowed to agree with the majority. It means you have an inherent ability, as one human living with other humans, to say stuff that pisses other people off. If the politicians prevent you from saying you disagree with them, they have VIOLATED your right of free speech, they have done a wrong to you. As long as they continue to prevent you from talking, they are continuing to wrong you. That continuing violation shows that they did not previously revoke your rights; you still have them and the government is still violating them. The government bureaucrats can violate your rights but cannot remove your rights precisely because your rights didn't come from the politicians in the first place. If the government did GRANT you your rights, it would be fair that they could revoke those rights whenever they please.

Rather, you and the politicians both had the right to free speech. The states granted the federal politicians a license to regulate specific things, after the populace granted the state politicians certain powers. The people gave certain powers to the politicians, not the other way around.

That's why the Constitution says "the federal government may do the following things, and may not violate THE right of free speech in the process ". It's THE right of free speech, not A right of free speech, meaning it existed before the Constitution barred the government from violating it.

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine