Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Distaste of C++ (Score 1) 476

[C++ is] the only mainstream language I know that supports both very low-level and very high-level programming style.

Apparently you don't know Ada2005 and Ada2012. Ada2005 & Ada2012 have richer low-level capabilities than C++1998 and C++2003, although once LLVM's clang and GCC's g++ and Microsoft Visual C++ all support all of {N2239, N2427, N2748, N2752, N2547}, C++2011 will then conceivably have greater expressivity than Ada2012 regarding concurrency-atomicity declarations. Ada2005 & Ada2012 is capable of nearly all of C++2003's major high-level capabilities, except meta-template programming because Ada's generics are not themselves Turing-complete as a functional (sub)language via recursive generics-/template-expansion, as C++1998-&-later's templates are. The more that I utilize C++'s meta-template programming, the more that I consider it a botched kludge straight from Hell, so Ada lacking meta-template programming is a Good Thing. Conversely, Ada has a rich amount of reflection via its tick (i.e., apostrophe) suffixes on identifiers; reflection is what meta-template programming is often used for in C++ anyway.

The Ada2012 Language-Reference Manual, Ada2012 Rationale, and other interesting Ada2012 materials are at: http://www.ada2012.org/

Comment Re:most of telecom RoWs in USA are not public land (Score 3, Interesting) 107

Indeed, one major telecom company is named for its railroad easements: SPRINT, the Southern Pacific Railroad Intercontinental Network of Telecommunications, although the latter 3 letters are likely :-) a backronym after Southern Pacific Communications Corporation (SPCC) changed its name to SPRINT.

Comment most of telecom RoWs in USA are not public lands (Score 3, Informative) 107

Most of the long-lines right of ways (RoWs) are along railroads, not public lands. The 2nd largest amount of RoWs crosscut underneath private property, such as underneath high-voltage electric transmission lines where the legal-infrastructure for the RoW was already in place for the electric grid.

Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 177

Evolution doesn't work that way. There has to be selection pressure. Bacteria that live in concrete but thrive in a lower pH would be selected against - the "thrive in high pH" would outcompete them.

I am glad that you live in Fictionland A) where all concrete ever made worldwide has precisely the same pH and B) where not a single one of these bacteria will ever leave human-made concrete to go live in ever-so-slightly-different natural limestone of various purities & imperfect compositions (hence widely different pHs, varying from concrete by small increments and varying from each other by additional small increments, creating a progression of different niches to select the fittest variety of bacteria for each niche pH over a wide spectrum of pHs).

Meanwhile, the rest of us live in the real world where your allegedly-impenetrable barriers are quite porous and where opportunity for evolution to fill a spectrum of differing-pH niches actually does exist.

Comment Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 177

Selecting on a pH range is not a foolproof kill-switch. Many things in this world have the same pH. Plus, how wide of a pH range does this species select on? Do calcium deposits in bone fall into the same pH range as the bacteria's selectivity? If not, then by how much do the pH ranges differ? How much is the bacteria's pH-range selectivity susceptible to drifting into other pH ranges over tens of thousands or millions of generations of evolution in coming years and decades? pH-range selectivity is not sufficient for impeccable safety.

Comment What could possibly go wrong? (Score 1) 177

Bacteria burrows into bone, squeezing bone marrow into an ever-tinier passageway, for a new disease mimicking leukemia or aplastic anemia. Bacteria burrows into joints, for a new cause of arthritis and bone spurs. I hope that the genetic engineers built a foolproof off-switch into this one, or perhaps this bacteria commits suicide in the absence of rebar.

Comment Re:Doesn't work (Score 1) 274

Most of those of us who have taught other people for decades 1) that the "su" command stands for "switch user" not for "super user" and 2) that root is the proper term and 3) that anyone who uses the term "superuser" is displaying a certain degree of ignorance have given up. Perhaps you should too.

Comment Re:Patch (Score 1) 274

On a system with 32-bit characters because ISO9899-bytes are 32-bit on that processor, for octets you will have to define your own types or include someone elses.

There, I fixed that for you.

DSPs are the typical processor with 32-bit chars. On DSPs, as per ISO9899, if chars are 32-bit because bytes are 32-bit (because 32-bit bytes are the smallest addressable unit of memory as each memory address is incremented by one), then short and int is 32-bit as well. As per ISO9899, none of {long long, long, int, short} can be smaller than a char, because by definition that smaller-than-char thing would nullify the claim that 32-bit bytes as chars are the smallest addressable unit.

Comment Re: Can It Go Federal? (Score 1) 390

If the typosquatter is in another state or nation, then the fraud crosses state or international boundaries; hence, prosecuting the fraud against the typosquatter would be a federal matter of criminal fraud law.

Conversely, if the typosquatter is in Indiana, then there are two likelihoods: 1) Original-poster sys-admin might in fact be the typosquatter without any identity theft. OR 2) The typosquatter may be a fellow employee who seeks to gain in their own career by eliminating original-poster sys-admin from the company. Indeed, if it is #2 and if it were to turn out that the typosquatter is an officer of the employer's corporation, then the employer's corporation can be argued to have framed the employee. If the typosquatter-framer is a nonofficer that is, say, another sys-admin, then the employer is terminating the wrong employee as it stands right now, while retaining the guilty party in this hypothetical scenario.

Finding out whose credit card was utilized to purchase the domain name and whose credit card (or ACH identifiers to which the advertising revenue that is earned by the typosquatter domain is deposited) is the key to determining all future plans of attack on your defense. Regarding your employment per se, that is a matter of civil law. But the fraudulent use of your identity to frame you is a matter of either Indiana criminal code (if all parties are within Indiana) or United States federal code (if at least one party is outside of Indiana). If you, original poster, are innocent as you claim, then the typosquatter may be guilty of wire fraud in the use of typosquatter's credit card as a material part of typosquatter's commission of the fraud against you.

Think about it, you might be able to charge one of your fellow coworkers with criminal charges if they framed you to "help you find a new job". Once all of that dirty laundry is hung out on the clothesline, then the employer might see matters in an entirely different light. Your entire future hinges on ascertaining the credit-card billing info that was utilized to pay for the typosquatter domain and/or how payments are made regarding the advertising revenue earned by the typosquatter domain. Once you find out the billing info on credit cards or ACH info on other financial accounts and if any party (including the bank) is outside of Indiana, then go to the nearest FBI office and file a report of fraud. The main FBI office that serves Indiana is in Indianapolis, although there exist branches in several of Indiana's larger cities too.

To get this credit-card billing info, you should hire a lawyer on a pay-by-the-hour basis, without retainer fee beyond having a credit card on file and perhaps prepaying the first 2 hours or so and a contract that doesn't have too many terms beyond: original poster promises to pay for the billable-hours incurred. Lawyers with sizable retainer fees (and lengthy retainer contracts) are usually pursuant to litigation against an adversary, but litigation against a known adversary is not what you want right now. You need to find your adversary (the typosquatter), then convince a government prosecutor to pursue the litigation against the typosquatter, if the typosquatter is within the USA. You want to convert this purely civil matter into a criminal matter ASAP. Hourly lawyers that do not require multithousand-dollar retainer fees up front are the kind of lawyer that you need: filing the magical paperwork to get accomplished the things that you need right now, such as subpeonaing the typosquatter's financial information from the domain registrar or from the hosting service at which the typosquatter domain is parked. Still, you are going to spend at least a four-digit sum for the no-retainer lawyer to file the magical paperwork for you. You can save money by being the investigator yourself, doing all the leg-work; you would delegate only the filing of legal paperwork in courts to the lawyer (instead of utilizing the lawyer as an expensive private investigator of sorts). Most importantly, this lawyer is your attack dog against the typosquatter. This lawyer would hardly know that your employer exists. This lawyer would most likely be a criminal lawyer or a contract-law lawyer or both, not an employment-law lawyer (because you need to go after the typosquatter, not your employer). Somehow showing the employer your criminal-investigation good works comes later, perhaps with the aid an employment lawyer.

Slashdot Top Deals

In computing, the mean time to failure keeps getting shorter.

Working...