Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

Comment Re:decline in leadship quality (Score 1) 289

OK, I'm coming out of cryogenic storage to tell you to shut up. You opened this subthread with *bizarrely ignorant claptrap*, and should have shut up when the first reply called you out on your lies. But now you're doubling down.

Lincoln could not be the "trigger that started the Civil War" when he was elected *after the war started*, after the majority of the Confederate states had already seceded, the last 4 were already proceeding with secession, and the Confederacy had already started shooting at the Union. Which should have been enough facts to shut you up, but I suppose you enjoy the kind of BS sometimes known as "from the South's perspective": any lie to deny the truth, however bizarrely ignorant.

Lincoln wasn't a "two-bit" lawyer prior to his political career, he was an extremely well accomplished lawyer. And he didn't have "zero experience", he had represented Illinois prominently in the US House of Representatives, and served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 8 years prior to that.

Lincoln was of course recognized as a good leader while destroying the Confederacy, being reelected to do so. That is the very definition of "recognized as good leader": reelected wartime Commander in Chief of the USA. Yes, the US press and many factions are always highly critical of any president; "universally recognized as a good leader" doesn't even belong to FDR.

Oh, how about your BS about Lincoln's "razor close" first election? Lincoln: 1,866,452; Douglas: 1,376,957; Breckinridge: 849,781; Bell: 588,789. That 489,495 margin over #2 was a *landslide* 10.4%, . What the hell are you talking about? You also said something deranged like "but if the South had been voting in the second election". What about "but if the South had freed its slaves instead of seceding"? Because they're equally nonsensical hypotheticals. And your Electoral College split 4 ways because *there were 4 candidates*, no reflection on Lincoln's leadership. But Lincoln's 180 EVs to the combined total of the other 3 at 123 EVs was an even bigger landslide than the popular vote. The words "razor close" don't describe any aspect of Lincoln's *landslide victory* over a full field, representing a new party in a large war-divided country.

And how does maintaining his commitment to Emancipation, even in face of a resigning Cabinet member (showing Lincoln's commitment to including even those who disagreed in his Cabinet, more committed than they were to staying), show anything but deeply effective leadership - as the government didn't suffer, but instead the nation was kept together even despite the war?

Your spin on all that crazy talk is that Lincoln turned out to be a leader who rose to the occasion, despite no reason to expect it. But in fact Lincoln gave all indications of being an exemplary leader from start to finish of his presidency.

Were you perhaps educated about Lincoln out of some "ex" Confederate state textbook? In any case, who taught you that when you're totally wrong you should ignore being proven wrong and double down with even more wrong?

Comment Re:'Open, therefore secure', LOL (Score 1) 214

You can never (in practice and under usual economic border conditions) make closed source secure. On the other hand, while you must make it open in order for it to be possibly secure, you must do other things in addition.

Really, get a grip on basic logic and stop claiming bullshit.

Sorry, but I've spent WAY too much time over the last year or two dealing with huge vulnerabilities in open source to believe any of the stuff you are spouting. OpenSSL alone (Heartbleed and several other critical flaws) has cost me a huge amount of time, and that's one of those open source security related products that theoretically will attract the most auditing attention and should be "secure due to the number of eyeballs theoretically always auditing it". Yet despite being open, it has not become secure, or even close to secure.

On my web hosting team (which hosts thousands of websites and uses both Linux and Windows), we have spent far less time over the last couple of years patching or dealing with closed source critical Windows vulnerabilities than we have spent on various open source critical vulnerabilities. Things always go in cycles, and probably we'll have a year here soon where Windows racks up the most major headaches again, but the point is, there's no way you can claim you can "never make closed source secure" but that "making it open could make it possibly secure if you take some additional steps". That's all nonsense. Neither model is any better than the other when it comes to security, and neither can ever be made totally secure, especially as complexity continues to rise.

Open source has its benefits, but security has never been one of them, as recent history demonstrates. It just seemed that way for a while when it had less of an install base. Now that everyone, even commercial products, are embedding open source packages like OpenSSL into them, the target base is easily big enough to invite the black hat attention, and we see that things are basically the same as they are for closed source packages with a large install base.

PS - The Linux foundation is working with researchers to make a huge push to audit OpenSSL to look for issues. This, again, proves things are the same between open and closed source. Windows gets repeatedly, badly owned, and Bill Gates writes his secure computing memo directing a huge amount of resources at security training and auditing, and things do actually improve (though they are never perfect). Now, OpenSSL gets owned, someone directs huge resources at it, and it will probably improve, in the same way and for the same reasons as closed source. Put the resources behind it, you can improve security, but without a dedicated, directed push, things slide in both models because programmers, whether in closed or open shops, are in general are fairly lazy and like new shiny things, and don't really enjoy doing mundane boring tasks like auditing old code.

Comment Re:Let's face it... (Score 2) 260

The existence of life, particularly very simple kinds of life, is not remotely incompatible with the bible. The existence of advanced *intelligent* life, however, may be.

Your statement that the Bible is not contradicted by extra-terrestrial life is true. The Bible only says God created life. It doesn't specify all the places where he might have put it, and it never says he didn't put it on other planets (in fact it is completely silent on the topic). Considering the Bible says he created the entire universe, finding bacteria on Mars would not contradict anything.

In fact, famous atheist turned Christian apologist CS Lewis, known for both his famous theological works such as "Mere Christianity" and his fantastic fiction works, such as the Chronicles of Narnia, also wrote a science fiction trilogy beginning with the book "Out of the Silent Planet". In that series, life exists not just on Earth, but also on Mars and Venus. It's actually a pretty good read, although his description of Mars can at times be unrecognizable because he wrote the book before we sent probes there and got detailed pictures, so the terrain he describes is not accurate. The point, however, is that great Christian thinkers have not necessarily had any problem imagining life on other worlds, and have not necessarily considered even intelligent extra-terrestrial life to be in conflict with the Bible. In that series, both the inhabitants of Mars and Venus were equal to man (in fact, they were above man in many ways, because they chose not to sin; only Adam on Earth led life on his planet into sin according to the story).

And just a side note: I keep seeing people here claiming Christians can't be intellectuals, or that being intellectual is incompatible with Christianity. That's simply not true.

  1. Lewis was a professor at Oxford and later chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge. He was probably smarter than most people posting on this board.
  2. His friend JRR Tolkien (yes, the Lord of the Rings Tolkien) who led him to Christianity, was a professor and fellow at Oxford.
  3. There were plenty of Christian scientists too, from Calculus and Newtonian physics pioneer Isaac Newton, to physicist Werner Heisenberg, to father of rocketry Werner Von Braun.

And Max Planck (yes, the father of Quantum Theory and the person the Planck length is named after) actually said this: "No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find contradiction between religion and science"-there is "complete concordance." Raymond J. Seeger, "Planck, Physicist" in The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 37 (December 1985): 232-233 (; viewed 26 September 2005)

So before you troll on Internet message boards about how stupid Christians are compared to scientists, you might want to check the beliefs of those scientists you adore. It appears quite a number of them apparently hadn't gotten the memo that you can't be a great scientist if you are "backwards" enough to believe in Christianity, and not knowing Christianity and science had been declared by Internet trolls to be irreconcilable, they went ahead and believed in Christ while making some of the biggest scientific leaps in history. Lol.

Comment Are we sure our probes didn't bring life to Mars? (Score 2) 260

Even at that, considering how much material Earth and Mars have exchanged over billions of years, it wouldn't even really be that amazing for single cell life to be on Mars, especially if it has a common origin with life on Earth. If we proved beyond doubt that it had an independent origin, THAT would be big.

Let's put aside the long timelines and asteroid impacts and focus on more recent exchanges. We keep sending probes to Mars, and I don't think we sterilize them before we send them. I know space is a harsh place, but bacteria on Earth live in some exceedingly harsh environments. Is there any way to guarantee that nothing survived the journey, and that any life that may be on Mars wasn't in fact brought over by us in the first place?

And if we found bacteria there, how would we prove whether it is native or our own? We haven't even discovered all forms of higher life on Earth, let alone created a database of every bacterial strain. Could a "new" bacteria we find there actually be a less common form native to Earth that we've never catalogued, that managed to survive a probe ride and thrive over there? I keep expecting scientists to announce they've found bacterial life over there, only to eventually realize far later that it's actually Earth life.

Comment Re: Go Bucks! (Score 1) 190

There doesnt need to be more unwanted children in the adoption files than there is.

You just say that to make yourself feel better about the rampant killing of children that goes on in our society. The actual fact is that most adoption agencies have a two year average wait time. There are more loving families looking to adopt than there are children to match them with. Even if that weren't the case, it's still just as wrong, and sick, to murder a child, but it's especially pathetic to claim they are "unwanted" and that you are doing them a favor by killing them.

By the way, I hope you didn't type that inane post on an iPhone or iPad, because if everyone followed your wicked ideas, Steve Jobs would have been aborted, not raised in a loving home, and there would be no such thing as Apple Computer. Just think about that when you claim an adopted baby is unwanted and will be nothing more than a welfare leach. And even if they don't invent Apple Computer, their life is still just as valuable and they have a right to live it out as they wish.

And yes, I will say it: if you are not ready to have kids then you'd better either be willing to abstain, or lovingly raise any child you have/put it up for adoption. They should not pay the price for your lack of self control and your bad decisions.

Comment Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation (Score 1) 429

Please pardon the really bad autocorrect above. That's what I get for posting this with a mobile device. I was trying to say a lot of languages owe a big debt to TCL. Also in the case of PowerShell, its design philosophy of the same. In PowerShell, almost everything is a command (cmdlet), but they are compiled as and interface with a different underlying language (C#). That way you can script really easily with PowerShell at a high level, but the underlying code is much more robust and fast. And that was basically the TCL philosophy, albeit with C. TCL was the glue language you scripted with, but C was the language that did all the work, and did it fast.

Comment Re: Skill and TCL in Design Automation (Score 1) 429

TCL is a really important language with a lot of other languages with big debt to. It is not used as much anymore, but languages like PowerShell borrowed really heavily from it. PowerShell basic philosophy is that pretty much everything is a command line, and they all interface to an underlying, more robust language. In the case of PowerShell that is C#, but in the case of TCL that was C. TCL was designed to be a glue language, something you could easily script against but that could call underlying more performant native code. It still gets used for that today, in a great example of it is the f5 load balancing platform. TCL is the language of iRules, and you can write scripts against it that are calling native C functions and can modify any piece of code on the network at wire speed. F5 networking gear is extremely advanced, and you will find it in the heart of most large corporate networks. And it is still TCL that plays arguably one of the most important roles in that equipment. And don't forget about TK, which was the graphics platform that combined with TCL helped it to really take off. It still is one of the easier ways to make up a GUI. PS - there are now plenty of typical developer rumblings to replace TCL on f5 equipment with JavaScript, but here's hoping that never happens. TCL is much better suited to what it does, and the last thing we need is mission critical equipment that is constantly changing JavaScript frameworks every other week.

Comment Re:Don't worry! (Score 2) 319

"Don't worry, it's cyclical."

In this case, I think it actually is cyclical. When the current cycle of forcing consumers to pay for 50 channels they don't want for each one that they do want ends, then there will be a new cycle of cable TV subscription increases.

This isn't the death of pay TV, it's just the death of forcing people to pay for TV content they don't want. Let me buy just my top five favorite channels for $5-10 a month, and I'll sign up in a heartbeat. Until then, the cord remains clipped.

Comment But Republicans are for market forces... (Score 0) 319

Expect the Republicans to stop this as soon as they can.

Actually, Republicans have always been for market forces. There are no market forces here, what with monopolies everywhere. If Republicans had any power this would already be gone, and you'd have multiple cable lines going into your home with multiple companies competing for your dollar.

The current system reeks of monopolies, crony "capitalism" and other anti-capitalist ideas, which is usually the domain of the Democrats and left leaning Republicans. Why should anyone be prohibited by law from running wires to my property? It's my property. Why should anyone get to tell me which company I must use, or get to tell me how many wires I can have on my land? That's clearly an anti-capitalist position. But it is a classically Democrat position, because they don't mind government controlled monopolies and they love to keep copper mining and other manufacturing as low as possible to protect the environment.

Comment Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... (Score 1, Offtopic) 319

It's f*cking amazing that a site full of IT geeks can't understand separation of powers or a default rule of deny all.

That's an excellent point. You would think the 10th amendment would make it clear (as if it isn't already clear just from reading the main document) that the constitution is a whitelist of the few things the federal government MAY do, not a blacklist of the few things it can't. IT geeks ought to be able to tell the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist, but apparently not.

The 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There it is folks, they just declared a whitelist. If it isn't explicitly delegated to the federal government by the constitution, then the feds can't do it. I wish we could build a nice, special legislative firewall through which all congressional laws must flow, with the Constitution serving as the ACL. The congressional record would probably look like the logs on a primary Internet firewall: 10 million spurious packets (or outright attacks, because yes, some of these laws are attacks on our rights) blocked for every legitimate packet that gets through.

Comment Re:Expect the Republicans to stop this... (Score 2) 319

In my state, we've been forced to buy auto liability insurance since, well...forever.

If you choose to own and operate a motor vehicle, there are certain laws you have to follow, including carrying enough insurance to cover the damage you may do to someone should you make a mistake. But you do have a choice in the matter, because you don't have to own and operate a motor vehicle. If you walk, ride a bike, take mass transit, ride with uber, etc, you are not forced to buy any products... you had to opt in to that set of laws by choosing to buy and drive a car.

The huge difference here, the thing that is truly unprecedented, is that every living American is now forced to buy a product. There's no opt out. There's no choice. If you breathe, you must buy. This is oppressive, this is different, and it only has happened under a Democrat, Obama. If you want to go live off the grid on a homestead somewhere and be a subsistence farmer living and dying in your own when your time comes, tough beans for you. If you want to be an Amish person, live in your community and not make use of any modern medicine, tough beans for you. If you don't want to pay for modern insurance just because you want to take your chances and save some money (which I think is stupid, but freedom should allow people to do it), then tough beans for you. Obama still makes you buy his product.

This is yet another example proving that Liberals and liberty have nothing in common.

Comment Re:What exactly is a SDN, anyway? (Score 1) 105

How far are we away from this now? Most switches anymore seem like specialist PCs with a zillion NICs that boot some variant of linux or bsd and allow for pretty exotic topologies as it is, limited only by the interconnect hardware they have.

And that's just the switches. Have a look at a really advanced network device, like the F5 Big-IP load balancer. That loads Linux plus a proprietary real time OS called TMOS, is a full proxy for most common traffic types like TCP, and as a full proxy it can intercept and edit anything that comes through it. And if you don't like the gazillion options it gives you, you can write iRules in the TCL language and apply them to any listener. The iRule is basically just a TCL program, and it can edit the packets and their payload in any way you want as they come through. And all these BigIPs can be remotely controlled by BigIQ, which is F5s centralized controller.

So in theory, if you compromised the F5 you already had pretty much the same kind of control over traffic the blackhat people are highlighting. But, not everything in your network would run through an F5. I think the big difference today is that everything DOES run through a switch somewhere.

Comment Re:nature will breed it out (Score 1) 950

Don't be absurd. There's no evidence that it's inherited, and he's arguing that it is a result of events in the person's life. It's entirely nurture.

I don't know if it's entirely nurture, but I do think that's a big part of it. My wife and I are Millennials, and when we grew up all these technologies like the Internet and video games were coming in and I don't think anyone thought too much about it. I know I've played a lot of video games in my time and wasted absolutely copious hours online, though I don't look at porn both for the sake of my wife and because I'm a Christian and it isn't right. But Internet and video games seem to be enough to cause problems even without porn... I'd actually wondered if they weren't rewiring my brain several years ago as I began to notice how hard a time I had putting down my smart phone and just being able to sit quietly without technology in my hand.

My wife and I have three children, and we've realized phones, iPads, etc have become so ubiquitous they're interfering with our ability to spend time with our kids and raise them well. It's just way too easy to grab one of those and not talk at the dinner table, or to completely numb out in the evenings. We are lucky that we are old enough to remember a time before the technology when we were different, because we can see that changes have happened and we've realized we don't like the changes. We're actually turning things off as a result. We've deactivated our facebook accounts, the iPad stays pretty much just at work where I use it only to read work related research materials, and my wife is going back to a flip phone with no real Internet browser (and I may follow her shortly). Oh, and my giant flight simulator hookup is up for sale too. Our oldest child will be six this summer, and I'm just hoping we haven't lost too much time, and that the rewiring can work the other way.

While a lot of people would say I'm pretty successful, as I've gotten a lot of promotions at work and make a good income and have an intact family, still I don't think I'm really reaching my potential as a Dad, husband, Christian, or even engineer because of all these distractions. So here's to turning it back off and partying like it's 1995 again, with an isolated, inconvenient to access desktop being the primary way to get online and discouraging access.

Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb