Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:even more rough edges (Score 2) 131

by tnk1 (#47385331) Attached to: Damian Conway On Perl 6 and the Philosophy of Programming

I honestly fear it may already be too late for perl6.

Let's just look at this like any other software development project. Perl 6 may well be heads and tails above Perl 5, or even other languages, but it has seriously lost momentum to other languages.

It is good to have a roadmap, and good to change, but they should have settled on like the top 5 features that they really wanted, come up with a solution for it, and released it. At this point, they're just in a cycle of taking so long that the innovation curve is out pacing their development curve and they keep holding back.

Perhaps they became oversensitive to the criticism that perl wasn't cutting edge enough and so tried to chase some line of purity that would shut everyone up forever, but it has turned it into a death march. Personally, just a few improvements like ditching the sigils and some performance enchancements would have been worth a major version upgrade to me.

Perl is still relevant only because of the code that already exists in it, and the people who know it. The longer they take to end the uncertainty of perl6, the more people will become comfortable with other languages which are new or have moved on, and the less code there will be in perl, relative to other projects.

I like perl and I have been waiting for Perl 6 to take off, but at this point, I don't know what I would do with it other than piss off people who are using ruby or python or something else to so sysadmin/DevOps work. If I have to learn to be as good at ruby or python as I am with perl, I'm not going to bother with perl any more.

Comment: Re:Lets all take a step back to appreciate this: (Score 4, Funny) 100

by tnk1 (#47161363) Attached to: Protecting Our Brains From Datamining

Edward Snowden will shortly be releasing transcripts of this too. Here's one example:




I'm not worried. I'm already aware of what most 15 year old boys are thinking about, we don't need the NSA for that.

Comment: Re:Increasingly common? (Score 4, Interesting) 100

by tnk1 (#47161321) Attached to: Protecting Our Brains From Datamining

I agree, to an extent. These devices are hardly going to read minds in the sense of providing all of that detail.

However, whatever they lose in quality (of resolution), they may make up for in quantity. A poor quality device may still be able to provide some useful data points when applied to a larger group of people. Put some branding or situations inside a game, monitor for coarse grained interest or emotion, and you might have something useful to marketers or game designers. Or not.

When things like this start approaching mass markets, people start thinking of other uses for the data. Working in a field where people are spending good money trying to vacuum up all the data on the Internet, even shitty Facebook posts, I see first hand how people get excited over any new data point. Most of it is crap, but there's some gold in there, for sure.

Click-bait, but still interesting to consider.

Comment: Re:Actually RTFA (Score 1) 40

by tnk1 (#47161211) Attached to: Bill Blunden's Rejected DEF CON Presentation Posted Online

This. He takes one person't inflated statement about hacking being the biggest economic issue out there and instead of stating matter of factly that the banking crisis probably flushed more money, he went off on a rant. If he'd have kept it to one slide, he could have probably garnered a better response with that one slide showing a pie chart or a bar graph showing the vast difference between the monetary losses, stayed silent a moment, and then given the crowd a significant look and moved on. Everyone would have understood what he was saying. Instead, rant crescendo-ing into Bilderberger conspiracy theory. Ugh.

Otherwise, some interesting points about China, although I'm not sure if he was saying that China was better off under Mao, or just less dangerous.

Comment: Re:Lie-fest from the NSA (Score 1) 504

by tnk1 (#45709943) Attached to: CBS 60 Minutes: NSA Speaks Out On Snowden, Spying

They're asserting that they *don't* track everything. Metadata is important, but you're not going to roll up a plot hatched by previously unknown participants with it, there's not enough information for that. The metadata can provide connections between known terrorist operatives and previously unknown individuals, however. When those connections are established, then they obtain warrants for wiretap/content.

Point being, everyone is suggesting that they are operating a panopticon except for the NSA itself. And now you're suggesting that they have failed to stop domestic plots by using capabilities that they don't even admit to having. Next, someone is going to ask why the NSA hasn't proactively stopped all crime based on their omniscience.

Comment: Re:Islam (Score 1) 169

by tnk1 (#45708073) Attached to: France Broadens Surveillance Powers; Wider Scope Than NSA

Don't mistake being regularly "religious" for being a candidate for terrorism. Most of these "jihadis" become full-on religious only fairly late in the process. I'm less worried about the regular mosque-goers than I am about fairly recent converts or the kids brought up Islamic, but who didn't care about it until they were lured in by extremist recruiters. The more you are educated about a particular religion, the less chance they can pull the wool over your eyes with their radicalized version of that religion.

Comment: Re:Islam (Score 1) 169

by tnk1 (#45704117) Attached to: France Broadens Surveillance Powers; Wider Scope Than NSA

Is anyone actually being held back by this, though? The fact that you might be a crack addict who sleeps with interns while hanging out with crime lords is something that can easily be found out by the news media anyway. If you are that sort of person to begin with, perhaps you shouldn't be in government.

What information is the NSA going to provide that is going to cause problems for legitimately non-criminal candidates? You don't need the NSA to frame someone.

Comment: Re:Lie-fest from the NSA (Score 0) 504

by tnk1 (#45703909) Attached to: CBS 60 Minutes: NSA Speaks Out On Snowden, Spying

So your assertion is that terrorist plots that originated in the US were not stopped by the NSA, who themselves assert that they do not track domestic traffic expect maybe metadata, so we are no more safe?

Your beef is with the FBI, not the NSA. The NSA, like the other intelligence agencies, is only collecting data, usually for foreign initiated situations. The metadata that they collect is not supposed to be for domestic consumption unless some law enforcement agency like the FBI requests it.

Comment: Re:Amazing (Score 1) 210

by tnk1 (#45685445) Attached to: NuScale Power Awarded $226 Million To Deploy Small Nuclear Reactor Design

They can use their existing money and assets to buy into nuclear plants. The reason the Koch Brothers, and every rich person who didn't inherit it, has and keeps their money is because they move it where there is more money to be made. Right now it is oil and pipelines, but killing pipelines will not kill people like that. It's not entirely certain if silver or garlic will either.

Comment: Re:GET A WARRANT (Score 1) 509

by tnk1 (#45682671) Attached to: NSA Head Asks How To Spy Without Collecting Metadata

Eh. Spying on foreigners is certainly not legal in their country, but everyone does it to everyone else. It would be nice and all to stop doing that, but I can name a few countries that have no plans to stop doing that and wouldn't suddenly "see the light" if we did so unilaterally. I don't find the cessation of intelligence gathering to be realistic.

And as much as privacy is a good thing, simply collecting information itself doesn't hurt anyone. The question is what you do with it. I'm much more concerned with that.

Now *inside* the US there are laws that need to be obeyed. If those aren't being obeyed, they need to be. If they are, and we still don't like them, we need to get the laws changed. We also have to not send mixed messages to legislators. For instance, if they follow the Constitution to the letter and make sure that they avoid anything that may even be ambiguously unconstitutional, they *will* miss opportunities to catch people. The real question is how much risk does that add, and how much risk do we tolerate as a citizenry. We need to accept that our Constitution has a price tag on it. "Freedom isn't free" isn't just talking about soldiers. You let people have certain liberties, those liberties can be taken advantage of. We need to learn that and become okay with the resulting risk or we're doomed to fail eventually.

Comment: Re:Millions of years of life-supporting conditions (Score 5, Insightful) 312

I always wondered what the point was with considering panspermia. If life could have appeared anywhere in order to make it to Earth, it could have just as easily originated on Earth to begin with. There's nothing miraculous about Earth, but there is nothing sub-standard about it either.

It would be interesting to know if terrestrial life started elsewhere, but what problems does that hypothesis solve? The only one I can think of is why all almost all Star Trek aliens look like humans with different foreheads.

Comment: Re:Nope (Score 2) 537

by tnk1 (#45549975) Attached to: Why Bitcoin Is Doomed To Fail, In One Economist's Eyes

The government can "take over" by passing laws that make it illegal to use or exchange bitcoins unless they are registered or have some other control feature. Private money is not illegal in the US, but it doesn't have to stay that way. That wouldn't stop the illegal usage of bitcoins, of course, but having the government go from indifferent or passively hostile all the way to actively hostile will be a serious problem. Even drug traffickers need to get their eventual profits into state-sponsored money for it to be useful for them. If they didn't, they would have created their own monetary system decades ago.

Comment: Re:Those that know ... (Score 1) 183

by tnk1 (#45347577) Attached to: Microsoft Narrows Down CEO Shortlist: Elop, Mulally, Bates, Nadella In Mix

I wholeheartedly agree that the employee rating system needs to be less about competing with your co-workers and more about competing with your actual competitors.

While there does need to be some accounting for people who are not performing, you don't create a system that tries to find that out at the cost of completely undercutting your own teams.

I've met people who are shitty at their jobs, but excellent at backstabbing. MS already has too much of that. Hopefully they pick a CEO who changes that, but that will be an uphill battle, to say the least. It's already cultural.

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson