Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 2) 194

Yep, feel the hate. I know, its fun to hate people. Just hope you never get in a bind and have to make choices between your beliefs and getting fed.

I met people with the same basic attitude in college. Privileged little kids who never met the real world and would go on at length judging other people. Just makes me sad.

Comment Re:Why is there still an "anti-malware" market? (Score 1) 143

I haven't had contact with Microsofts "anti-malware" for some time and apparently things have improved somewhat, but you could hardly do worse. Historically:

Windows Defender will at times not block malware that it detects (submit locally undetected sample, MS response is "definition included for 6+ months"). Submitting unknown (to MS) malware has at times resulted in it being flagged good. Heck, if a vendor of malware notified MS their "product" was being detected it was automatically removed from their detection. Detection of malware often lagged week or months behind other AV. I used to check back periodically on some of my submissions and that were perpetually stuck in "pending evaluation". These are samples that were detected by 20+ other AV vendors (virustotal is your friend) at the time of the incident.

What Microsoft did was buy a product (Giant, IIRC) and then let it languish.

OTOH, even the big name AV vendors are not known for treating the customers well and in general there seems to be lack of quality performance from AV. And, if you're unlucky and are one of the ones to get hit by a sample during its first week the odds are not in your favor.

Realistically, you are better off ensuring Java, Flash and Adobe Reader are not installed, using an Adblocker and disabling Javascript in your browser. And, on Windows, configuring policy to prevent execution from temp folders, etc.

Of course, you will have broken a lot of the Internet. And both Chrome and Firefox rely on execution from temp folders (e.g., for updates).

Comment Re:I feel so conflicted... (Score 1) 126

As a home schooler I'm interested in some of your claims. You have actually had contact with home schoolers? Their children? If so, how many? Was it just in a small area? Or spread out? You make some broad claims without any citation and it seems rather unlikely that you have broad experience on the subject.

First, lets take your claim that it "comes out equal" when "adjusting for income". Some home schoolers I know are well off (middle class), but most are -- at best -- in the lower portion of the middle class if not lower class. As families, the ones I am familiar with, put a greater emphasis on the family rather than status or money -- which is why they home school and often have lower income than other families in the area.

Second, you echo a broadly held belief that home schoolers are religious nutters. And it is certainly true that the people you find actively defending parental rights are often christian. But so is a lot of the rest of the population. For those families I'm familiar with they are as likely to be atheist or wiccan as christian, and the population at large here is *definitely* conservative christian. Go to the public schools and you will be around far more conservative christians than the home schoolers.

Third, there are certainly some home schooled children who do not benefit from it. Bordering on teenager and still unable to write their names or do simple arithmetic. And that is sad and disturbing. Same area, much the same can be said of graduates from the public high school -- in other words children who are even older and cannot subtract, much less divide or multiply. The real reason home schoolers do better on average is most likely the vastly better student/teacher ratio.

Fourth, it isn't as simple as home schooling vs public education. I am a firm supporter of public education -- but I am exercising my right to educate my children at home. It isn't easy -- to actually educate someone takes time, effort and money. I am supporting public education through property taxes (which, again, I support and approve of), but on top of that I am researching and obtaining educational materials (for the same reasons I support public education, I feel that educational materials should be provided to the public free of charge -- that is, subsidized as necessary for production). Then there has to be time to spend with the children to teach them *and* patience to go along with that. It isn't easy: sending your children to public school? *That* is easy.

Finally, not all home schoolers are the same so unless you have some meaningful study or verifiable facts to back up your assertion then it is likely to be inaccurate generalizations brought on by prejudice.

Comment Re:Huh? (Score 5, Interesting) 194

I knew someone who worked at Sprint's telemarketing center in Georgia. Stress is high, pay is low, and, naturally, turnover is high. People don't tend to stay at those places long, but if you haven't been able to get other work it can help pay bills until you can.

Hating on the people making the calls is wrong, hate the companies who pay the telecoms to do it for them. Hate the telecoms for double dipping (taking money for a number to be unlisted, then taking money to provide lists that include unlisted numbers, then taking money for a number to be unpublished, etc.). Hate on the companies that use robocallers that spoof the source.

But please realize that not everyone can have a desirable job.

Comment Re:UN rules in Assange's favor (Score 2) 320

I know, replying to an AC, but your comment is just a little strange.

I don't understand why you would say "he was the darling of the establishment". Is that because the leaks embarrassed the US or UK governments so much that they loved him? Or do you have some pet definition for "the establishment"?

On the other hand, "he's just an arrogant little toerag" seems about spot on. If there really is a US-backed conspiracy to disappear him that is pretty bad, but Assange's mental and emotional stability seem to certainly have arrogance as a component. It reminds me of the saying, "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean your not paranoid".

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 130

I buy movies and shows, but I rip them, each and every one. Why? The advertising on media you've purchased is not disgraceful, its disgusting.

Let me be clear: I *enjoy* watching trailers for movies that I might remotely have an interest in. What I don't want is to have to sit through fifteen minutes of them before I can watch the movie that I wanted to watch. I tolerate it in the theater, but when I sit down to enjoy Iron Monkey I want to watch it -- not wait for anti-piracy blurbs and trailers I've already seen numerous times.

So I rip the movie, along with alternate audio tracks and subtitling. MKV is a great format. If they don't make it too obnoxious, I'll also rip the trailers.

Now, as a consumer, would I rather pick up the movie file for free or pay for a disk and have to fight with industry efforts to prevent me from ripping it? I mean, c'mon, this isn't really much of a contest. If I could download a legal DRM-free copy of a movie with extras for retail price then the equation flips back the other way. The added benefit of having a disk is for backup purposes -- but for most people that is outweighed by the hassle of defeating DRM. Which they then "outsource" to the pirates.

But oh noes! the pirates would take such a DRM-free copy and share it with the world! Except that they *already* do that, stripping the DRM from the DRM laden version or an internal leak. Sometimes you can even watch a movie before its theatrical release.

Piracy exists, deal with it. Allow legal online distribution where a non-streaming non-DRM version reduced for bandwidth and storage is available at reduced price with a full non-DRM version available at retail prices. The studio will make more money via direct sales cutting out the middleman, but people who have bandwidth/storage concerns can go the traditional optical disk route or use a reduced version.

Comment Re:therefore the speed limit is invalid (Score 1) 554

You are correct about there not being anything binding. And, contrary to what I'd thought, no one really knows what speed makes a roadway safer. When I mentioned the "greater the speed delta the greater the risk" to a traffic engineer I was set straight. That's a bit of urban folklore with no basis in scientific study. It may be true, but it is not *known* to be true.

And there is precious little interest in setting speed limits for any scientific or engineering reason. Anyone who has driven for any length of time has come across gems -- like reverse banked curves that do not have a reduced speed, but nice, gentle curves in farmland with excellent visibility for miles that have substantially lowered speed.

It isn't just speed limits, either, but passing zones as well. No passing in areas of perfect visibility, with passing allowed in areas with poor or deceptive visibility.

No, unfortunately the rules of the road are made by politicians who order traffic engineers to produce data to support what they want.

Comment Re:Grace? (Score 1) 554

I know a traffic engineer who works for [censored] and is [censored]. Speed limits are essentially never set based on an analysis of roadway and traffic other than to estimate how much revenue will be gained. If the limit is absurdly low, there's a politician behind it. If the limit is absurdly high, there's a politician (and possibly the same one) behind it.

Part of the job of a traffic engineer is to produce studies supporting a politician's stance. Failure to do so can cause tension in the workplace. Which is really fun when two politicians are aiming for opposite goals for the same section of roadway.

Yay politics.

Comment Re:25 mph? (Score 1) 554

how dare you interfere in Darwin's Great Work! You must expunge children who have not had a fear of the roadway deeply ingrained to them!

And how moronic to drive 15mph in a 30mph zone! Why, its only natural that a normal driver would be doing at least 35mph there, if not 40mph or more, and how dare *you* slow them down? Can't you think of others you selfish get?

Comment Re:This looks intentionally proprietary, Apple (Score 1) 122

Holy cow. Those are actually comments from the article pimping this? \me checks. Crap, he's right.

Now, in Apple's defense, I think their use of "do" reads well and is a nice way to introduce a scope block. I mean, you could just use the curly braces (like C), but I can kinda see the point of putting a keyword there. And repeat/while similarly makes sense. And I don't think the argument that "everyone else does it this way" automatically outweighs other concerns.

But, damn, to put statements like those in an article *supporting* swift's syntax? Acknowledge that its different? Sure. But phrased the way those comments are, positioned in the article how those comments are, it comes across as hostile. Wow.

Comment Re:Next year (Score 0) 122

I'm also not impressed with "guard". The article claims it makes for simpler and easier to maintain code, but I don't buy it. They say it avoids being if/else trees which, if true, would be a good thing. But you can have *simpler* code than "guard" by using if. For example, the following are equivalent:

guard validate(param) else { printError(); return; }

if not validate(param) { printError(); return; }

The "avoid if/else trees" is just a matter of returning from the function early. Guard in no way enables this. Further, the full structure is "guard/else" which separates the keywords while "if not" puts the intention forward immediately.

If this is a "great" or "must have" feature of swift then... meh

Comment Re:Copyright (Score 2) 56

what does it mean to publish? Certainly, google translate *transforms* text, but it is only doing a transformation, it is neither "publishing" nor is it "making available". If google translate made available a document that was not otherwise available then that would amount to publishing. What they do is not publishing.

Although some authors try, they have no legal grounds for dictating how something they publish is consumed. For example, I might read a book in a silly voice. This definitely offends some overly sensitive authors, but they have no legal grounds for preventing me from doing so. A translation is, in a legal sense, a mechanical transformation. Its purpose is to not alter, but rather preserve, meaning and intent. It does not creatively alter the original and so is less affecting than reading a book in a silly voice. Historically, "translation" has gone hand-in-hand with publication -- after all, why would someone go to the effort of translating a work without securing the right to publish it and benefit from those sales?

When you say "how can this [tool] exist" you only specify google tools. If you are intending to refer to the blog posting then if the images are in fact copyrighted then it would be up to the copyright holder to take legal action to enforce their rights. They are under no obligation to do so, much less any other entity.

You are also assuming that everything is "protected" by copyright, but this is not the case. There's this thing called "the public domain". Now, true, it is small and growing only ever so slowly, but it does exist. In particular, in the US if the government produces something on the public dime then it is in the public domain. Well, I suppose it can get complicated, but that is a basic premise. And, while credits are listed for photographs in the blog post, there is no indication of copyright. That does not mean the photos are not copyrighted, but it does provide anyone offended by their republication the opportunity to notify the creator.

In short: not everything is under copyright "protection" and for those that are the "protection" largely consists of publication and redistribution (the right to copy), not for how it is presented (whether that is read in a silly voice or something else).


Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes