Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:In other news (Score 3, Insightful) 205

Those who question a popular position, especially in a mocking or condescending manner, should strive to demonstrate a perfunctory attempt at providing evidence in support of an alternate viewpoint prior to publicly adopting the contrarian position.

To put this in simpler terms, either show evidence to support your specific position, or shut the fuck up and stop representing untested and unsupported ideas to be on the same plane as widely recognized and supported views that indicate only a vanishingly small degree of gender parity among Homo sapiens males and females with respect to sexual division of labor related to hunting responsibilities.

Have a nice day.

Comment Re:My worry (Score 1) 118

This is where teamwork really pays off. All the GP has to do is enlist the assistance of a friend to make sure the foil is uniformly wrapped around every square centimeter of his body, triple check that it's tightly crimped to avoid any potential for air leaks, and wait a mere matter of minutes for whatever problems he may have been concerned about to vanish.

Comment Re:hmmm... (Score 1) 85

Go anywhere on the dessert for one.

I stood on a few pies to test this hypothesis, but I still had signal. Am I doing it wrong?

Nothing like driving 100miles on a dangerous road with no signs of civilization anywhere when you need 911 the most.

Why are you doing such a thing without, at minimum, an emergency kit in the trunk consisting of a spare tire and tools, basic first aid supplies, a couple of blankets, flares, a firearm, some ammunition, and a jug of water? I don't travel for any significant distance in remote country without everything on that list. Even in town, most of that is still in the vehicle.

Comment Re:Douche-o-matic (Score 1) 251

Hey jackhole, guess what? I've personally witnessed more than one registrar virtually automatically roll over in cases like this, without so much as a glimmer of a court order or even a UDRP filing to back anything up. Do you happen to work for GoDaddy or NetSol? If your employer is the former, tell Bob Parsons I said he's still the turd he used to be, that is if you can reach him these days. If it's the latter, you're probably trolling on their behalf, so take a 15 and try to think about what you're doing with your life.

Comment Re:Client-side Caching (Score 1) 516

No, it is not validly cached, at least not in any useful sense given the sea of caching proxies and user agents in the field. The headers presented merely hint that discretionary caching is okay, and do nothing to encourage caching either by proxies nor end user agents, nor inform such recipients of additional criteria which affects these factors. Please read RFC 2616 and come back when you're done.

Comment Re:Client-side Caching (Score 1) 516

I'll just go ahead and directly quote from your notes:

This response allows a cache to assign its own freshness lifetime.

You apparently don't spend very much time actually working with various caching proxies or examining the default behavior of various user agents when presented with various options (some caches follow RFC 2616 better than others, and different or incomplete response header combinations may well cause unexpected behavior as a result), or you wouldn't have wasted your time with a misleading and ultimately misleading response.

I've actually written a caching proxy and HTTP/1.1 accelerator from scratch. I suspect you haven't, which would have a lot to do with why you don't know what you're talking about.

Comment Re:Client-side Caching (Score 4, Informative) 516

Let's examine an HTTP request for a rather beefy portion of the JavaScript in question from

pparadis::palegray-mobile { ~ }-> curl --head
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Apache
ETag: "cfa9051cc0b05eb519f1e16b2a6645d7:1370524513"
Last-Modified: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:59:12 GMT
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 93436
Content-Type: application/x-javascript
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:44:20 GMT
Connection: keep-alive

They're not even bothering to set the HTTP Cache-Control, Proxy-*, or Expires headers on this content, which will most assuredly limit intermediary proxy and client caching. To say this is amateur hour would be a gross exaggeration of the skills being fielded by these developers.

Much larger issues undoubtedly exist in their backend infrastructure. Given the shit I've seen in this area, I could probably spend the next hour making educated guesses about how badly they've fucked up in various regards, spend another hour partially validating those guesses, and wind up just saying "yup, they're idiots." Instead, I think I'll go to bed now. I have work in the morning.

Comment This isn't exactly surprising. (Score 4, Insightful) 516

So the story here is that a large team of software developers with no demonstrated experience in developing, testing, performing quality assurance for, and administering large scale enterprise application deployments get a federal contract and botches it horribly. Color me shocked.

I've been working in development and architecture roles for fifteen years, and have seen exactly the same pattern on a variety of scales over and over again. I've seen a number of rather large infrastructure development projects that worked out very well too, but none of those were public sector projects.

Just remember that the folks responsible for this mess are certainly still taking paychecks while an enormous number of government workers are suffering due to the inability of our Congress to do its job. Good times, huh?

Slashdot Top Deals

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?