Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I agree (Score 1) 496

"Programmers are a dime a dozen. We get 500+ resumes a week for your position alone. We can easily hire a programmer who won't get sick on the job for a fraction of what we pay you."

For future reference, those are walking papers.

I was given an equivalent song and dance once also (back in 2003). I had my resignation turned in in less than 30 minutes. Hated to do that, but at least I wasn't abandoning an important project at the time, plus I didn't want to be walked out by security. Later that month, four other devs followed suit.

Comment Re:This is ridiculous (Score 1) 189

"this would connect to a DRM server on the Internet whenever the cell phone user would try to play a song. The song would only play if the response of the server would be positive. Otherwise no song would be played."

Under this silly scheme, even the copyright owner couldn't listen to their own stuff on their own phone!

That is the very first thing I thought of when I read the above statement. Essentially, the recording industry wants final say over which string of octets (bytes or data sent to an audio codex) are acceptable and which are not. Since there will (and can only) be a finite number of "acceptable" octet permutations, the number of unacceptable octet permutations becomes a mystery. If they leave it as finite, attempting to selectively target pirated copies, their DRM can be polymorphically (if not easily) circumvented. If the number of unacceptable octet permutations is infinite, then ONLY approved permutations of octets sent to said codex may be decoded. Checkmate! All your codex are belong to us.

Mathematically, any fair and equitable version of this scheme is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination. This is before you take into account that if the DRM server is "unreachable" the codex must necessarily fail to operate. Otherwise the DRM is easily circumvented.

Comment Re:I actually saw one of these.... (Score 1) 205

I wish I had been able to copy the CD and play around with the trojans in a sandbox but we were instructed not to touch it after we called the proper authorities. It would have been interesting to see what they were all about and where they are phoning home.

That was the first thing that popped in to my head when I saw the article. Hacking brand new malware to see how it works and what it does is fascinating to me. Of course, when the Secret Service says "no touch", they really really mean it.

Comment Re:already (Score 1) 863

Portland victim here... I concur. They are truly one of the ultimate expressions of technological douche-baggery ever inflicted on living creatures. At least we don't have the sensors (do we? Hell, I don't know). Just talking about it makes me want to go out and kill one WITH FIRE!!!! I even find myself avoiding the downtown area during the daytime because of those things.

Comment Re:Expectation of anonymity? (Score 1) 476

This leaves an opening for abuse. One that will no doubt be ruthlessly exploited: The 'victim' merely has to 'claim' that her reputation was threatened or in some way affected by some remark made by an anonymous detractor. Court order -> detractor outed -> retribution time. I admit, once Cohen got her name. She chose not to go further with the pettiness. Kudos to her. However, this whole affair smacks of pettiness, and self indulgence on the parts of everyone involved. Including the judge, who played the role of enabler to some random internet cat fight on the public dime. (just my opinion... but I'm sticking to it)

Cohen possibly felt this derogatory claim threatened her reputation or even her earning power.

I've been there too, but in my case sniveling and whining did not constitute proper evidence. The judge was not nice about it either. I quietly and humbly learned a valuable lesson: Be able to show actual, compelling evidence or STFU. Cohen's snivelling was delivered by better attorneys and thus actionable. She bent the court AND Google to her will (practically on a whim, hooray for money). Worse things are said about better people everyday, but somehow this instance was special? I call bullshit. I have to. It's the only way I can stay sane. =-P

If someone questions your skankiness in a newspaper, you generally have the power to rebut in the same forum. Not so in this case.

How not so? If you mean f2f? Post IMO deserved to be outed, but not with taxpayer money, and 'just because I (Cohen) can'! That is my main opinion (which is probably wrong, but I refuse to give up my sanity for the sake of "legal correctness").

And if you ever question my skankiness, there will be hell to pay! >;-D

Comment Re:Expectation of anonymity? (Score 2, Insightful) 476

Google should not have complied. It should have fought back instead of folding like cheap lawn furniture. However, Google is like any other American corporation when it comes to deciding whether or not to set a very bad precedent: take the cheapest route and smoke pole like a Tijuana crack whore.

What Liskula Cohen did was game the system for ego gratification. Pure and simple. Google could have spotted this (I'm sure they have *some* intellegent people working there). Hell in fact the Judge in this case could have spotted this and told Ms. Cohen to grow up and stop acting like a narcissistic, spoiled little eleven year old. I'm almost positive that Cohen's attorney told her that the case was terribly weak. But no. Instead, they both 'presented' like a whipped omega baboon. Pathetic.

In the US, it is quite legal for us to call each other names and say awful things about one another. Follow any election cycle! Plenty of people snipe at political candidates from what effectively constitutes 'anonymity'. Virtually nobody tries to stop them either. Its a hot kitchen, the internet. Man/woman up or GTFO. Sounds simple and fair to me.

Also... There's this thing called Barratry. Most of the US legal system has forgotten that it exists.

Comment Re:Strongly typed language? (Score 4, Funny) 299

I don't mean to sound pedantic, or borish, but C is actually "yeah baby yeah" typed, to enable pointer arithmetic, stack space exhaustion, buffer overflows, and system level development. It's not incorrect to say that it is weakly typed, per se. It's just awkward having to try to explain the direct parallels between the C type system and a 70s style love-in (where anything goes) -- to your manager.

Comment Re:No 12" LCD can fit cargo pocket (Score 1) 297

That might be fine when you're 18, but when you're 40 and your eyesight is starting to go you'll be glad of the larger pixels;

And then there is the question of keyboard size. I cannot deal with the keyboards on 10" and 8" netbooks. My hands are just too big! At least with the 12" neties, I can type at about 15-20 WPM!!! Anything smaller and it's game over. =p

Comment Re:Cause/effect doesn't matter. (Score 1) 438

A human community that uses mechanical causation to account for human behavior cannot survive, because it cannot hold its members accountable for their behavior.

Sure it can. Who ever said that a sane, sensible, rational, kind, conscientious person HAS to fight fair after being sucker punched?

We must believe in motives for human behavior, or we cannot maintain community life.

I don't mean to sound rude or impetuous Mr. Card, but we also must know our own mind, or we cannot avoid catastrophe.

Slashdot Top Deals

Only God can make random selections.

Working...