Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Neocon shills (Score 2) 133

The GOP wasn't hacked cuz it was self-destructing on its own and didn't need any help from Russia to fall completely apart.

Also there is this possibility that Trump is a Russian agent, doing what he does best, to be rewarded with ownership of a prime vacation palace on the shores of the Crimea. I'm not saying that's what's going on... I mean you just got to wonder. You know? What with being so chummy with Vladimir. It could be.... we'll have to wait and see where Trump goes after he drops out of the race... but I'm just speculating. You know?

Comment Re:The mandate to change passwords every three mon (Score 2) 211

Passwords in wallets:

Carry a business card (not your own) and steg the password on its back using some variant of the following:

"Ben O. Aronsen: 237 Smith Place #12 Roxbury Vt 05669 ---Sally has phone number". This stegs the password "237SP#12RVt05669" for a Bank Of America account.

Like the Purloined Letter, the password hides in plain sight. Ain't stegging wunnerful?

Comment Re:Rules for thee, not for me (Score 1) 216

That doesn't matter. Until it is demonstrated in court that she does not have standing to press her suit, Getty Images continues to lose credibility and customers. She wins.

And if GI does take it into court and proves that the images are public domain, then its loss is even greater since that would also prove that it had been fraudulently claiming to own the non-existent copyrights. That opens the door for multiple lawsuits from its previous customers. And of course is an admission of violation of USA Federal law.

Checkmate. She wins. Getty Images best course of action is to attempt to liquidate itself while trying to cover the asses of all its highest level executives.

If the FBI is not yet investigating, it will be soon.

Comment Re:Rules for thee, not for me (Score 1) 216

Exactly how she gave the images to the LoC, and exactly what the LoC means when it says the images are now in the public domain, will need to be explored in court. If she transferred the copyrights to the LoC, then she has no standing to sue for copyright violation. So she must be saying that she retained the copyrights and only gave an unlimited use license to everyone.

Getty Images needs to show that she transferred the actual copyrights to the LoC and therefore has no standing. That is likely to be a very tough thing to do.

And frankly I'm not sure that it matters. The photographer is righteously pissed off that Getty Images is making profits off of her work when she intended it to be freely given to everyone. And for as long as this trial makes news, Getty Images is being righteously punished as its name gets dragged through the mud, and potential customers start using the LoC and other resources for stock photos. Which is as it should be.

Getty Images best course of action is to settle quickly and quietly and cut its losses. But it may already be too late: it is clear that G.I. was making false claims of copyright ownership, which violates USA Federal law, and must have involved a conspiracy between the executive officers of the corporation. Since they were either doing this knowingly, or were deliberately grossly, criminally, negligent in failing to search for prior copyright before they claimed they held it.

There should be a story along soon about FBI involvement in this case.

Comment Re:Rules for thee, not for me (Score 1) 216

Yes, it appears they were not in public domain. And Getty violated a copyright notice that gave a broad class of individuals license to use these photos without payment in certain ways. But also Getty claimed a false copyright on material that was copyrighted by the creator.

There is no problem here in understanding "WTF the actual status is" for anyone who has a passing familiarity with FOSS copyrights. And those who benefit from the use of FOSS copyrights should become somewhat familiar with FOSS. Such as anyone who makes use of the material in any of the more than 80% of all websites that use Apache. And of course anyone who uses Slashdot.

Comment Re:Rules for thee, not for me (Score 1) 216

I also feel this is not enough.

Getty was either doing this with full knowledge that it was breaking the law, or it was grossly negligent-- criminally negligent-- in failing to determine that it could not have copyright on these images no matter how the images might have come to it. A company that makes its profits by licensing use of copyrighted material does not search the Library of Congress before purchasing or otherwise claiming copyright on its stuff? The only way that could happen is if the company deliberately chooses not to do due diligence before representing itself as the copyright holder.

At the least, the courts should put the company in receivership to be dissolved since that is the only way to assure that the clique of corporate officers who conspired to bring this situation about would be broken apart. Ideally various corporate officers would be tried for fraud or other white collar crimes, but at least the corporation could be destroyed.

Comment Re:Oh boy (Score 1) 384

Really? In light of the server scandal, paid internet trolls, DNC emails showing the placement of various disinformation, and "it depends on what the meaning of is, is", reasoned and intelligent are not the first descriptives that come to my mind concerning the DNC at large.

Above written by someone who has just demonstrated that he is capable of absorbing and truthifying all the reporting that Fox News delivers.

--

Without Ailes, what is going to happen to all the people for whom Trump is their voice? Will they wither away? Will they be consigned to the state of permanent, terminal confusion?

Comment Re:String theory is just that: a theory (Score 0) 161

I do not disagree with your general argument, but you are taking it too far.

DATA does not "say" dark matter exists. The indirect data we have suggests that as one possible explanation (and so far the only one that has survived critical analysis of numerous experiments).

But please look up the history of the theory of phlogiston. Data from numerous experiments and observations at the time suggested that it existed and went a long way toward describing its characteristics. But later experiments showed that there was no such fluid and that heat was an inherent characteristic of the atoms and molecules that were already somewhat understood.

The phenomena that led us to the ideas of dark matter and dark energy can also arise from a not-as-yet discovered self-organizing characteristic of the matter and energy we do know. While that would have a profound effect on our understanding of thermodynamics --reducing entropy to the same fictional status as centrifugal force-- it would also provide a far better basis for developing theories on how life and consciousness have evolved.

Comment Re:Great news everyone (Score 0) 161

A far simpler explanation is that the universe looks the way it does because we are in the light-distorting turbulent wake of somebody's FTL drive. So far as I know, no one has given much thought as to how to prove or disprove that. Perhaps we are too parochial in our thinking that there really could not be any other species so far advanced that our science might be affected by their unintended artifacts; that our science might be a cargo cult.

On the face of it, that approach seems as reasonable as positing dark matter and dark energy. And possibly it would be easier to frame falsifiable hypotheses with it.

Comment Re:Oh boy (Score 1) 384

I think parent post is correct in saying that about half the Democrats are conservatives. However this statement is wrong:

The democrats run a much more deceptive game than the republicans do because they have to.

Change "deceptive" to "reasoned" or "intelligent" and I would agree with the statement. Most Democrats are more aware of the complexity of the issues than is true of the GOP base, which tends to vote by litmus tests.

I also disagree with the following:

And now it takes a man like Trump to push votes their way, because they put forth such weak, even false "opposition".

While Trump and the sixteen other GOP wannabees were in that dog fight with each other, the Democrats did the smart thing by letting them alone. It was not the case that the Dems "put forth such a weak opposition"; it was instead that the Dems held themselves back while the GOP tore itself to pieces.

The USA functions at its best when there are two healthy political parties. Unfortunately there has only been one healthy party for the last ten years or so. The GOP has been in failing health for longer than Obama has been in office, and the events of the last couple of years suggest that it is on its deathbed.

Comment Xtra code when there is no cost (Score 3, Insightful) 239

Caveat: I am retired. Programming was a major part of my career between 1995 and 2005 but I mostly do HTML/CSS these days, with only enough PHP to glue others' existing scripts together.

What I determined back in the day is that efficient coding is unnecessary for performance when the wetware BKAC would always be the primary limiter on speed. Since virtually all of my work was repurposing documents from old versions of Word, Excel, WordPerfect, Lotus1-2-3, and other outdated apps to newer standards (mostly early HTML), I did not have to worry about shaving off microseconds. The typing speed of the person selecting the raw data had more impact on performance than the programming. So I was much more concerned with whether I would be able to rewrite a handler for a Windows3.11 app to work on a Windows98 version, if that need arose.

So I worked mostly in Perl using the Tk graphic interface and Javascript front ends, which made rapid development and easy revisions to meet new criteria possible. I used explicit declarations, human-readable naming conventions, extra punctuation, and the long way around the barn whenever the shorter routes looked like they might cause head-scratching later on.

If I had been working in an environment where microseconds counted, I would have used a compiled language and a different approach.

My old-timer's advice to you young'uns: Look at the environment you are coding in and match your coding style to fit its shape. Eschew becoming the cleverest code monkey in the cube farm and focus instead on becoming wiser than all the others.

Comment Re:Arguing over the subjective (Score 1) 523

The *only* advantage to object oriented design is more intuitive code organization

And that is one f*ckin' HUGE advantage.

The biggest obstacle to writing good code efficiently is the coder's mind. The biggest costs associated with production and maintenance of software are wetware costs, not software, and not hardware. OOP makes more efficient use of our wetware than structured programming.

While it is true that OOP is only appropriate in a smallish subset of the programming universe, that smallish subset encompasses more than 95% all of the business and commercial applications that ever were, are now, and ever will be.

Comment Re: Arguing over the subjective (Score 2) 523

No, that's wrong.

Good comments say in natural language what the code is intended to do, and what non-obvious reasons make it the way it is. The code in the programming language should be as readable as possible, but that does not negate the value of the comment. Both are needed for efficient bug hunting and validation.

Comment Re:Arguing over the subjective (Score 1) 523

Parent post makes a couple of good points. One of those could use a little sharpening:

The critical difference is not between "programmer" and "software engineer". There are persons with good and bad practices in both camps.

The critical difference is between "code monkey" and "strategic developer". A lot of self-labeled "programmers" are code monkeys who may sometimes be quite clever, but have not acquired the wisdom to do the elegant thing. A lot of newly credentialed "software engineers" are also mere code monkeys. Code monkeys have their place, and they can be quite productive, especially when they are put into closely managed environments where strategic developers set strict rules about comments, naming conventions, and styles. (cue "What Would Linus Do?")

Strategic developers see beyond the limited vision of code monkeys. They are concerned with much more than developing a solution to the immediate coding problem; their vision and scope of action involves long term maintenance; ease of repurposing code to some other project; fitting the product into the target ecosystem of software, and so on. Software engineering curricula are intended to prepare students for this role, but of course they generally fail to do so: I doubt that there are any persons with brand new diplomas who can be entrusted with anything beyond a code monkey's role.

That said, the general purpose of any college course is not to teach particular skill sets (like proper use of regexes, bash scripts, etc) but to encourage students to learn how to learn these skills. The good student will teach himself the necessary skills when he needs them. Instructors do not have to know the specific skill sets to present environments that challenge the student to learn how to learn. The details of how POSIX and PCRE regexes differ are not an appropriate subject; the reasons why Perl has its distinctive shape and feel, and the reasons why POSIX was brought into being should be touched on.

It can be argued that persons with software engineering credentials are more likely to become good strategic developers. But that is not always the case, and it is also true that code monkeys with no formal training have often become good strategic developers.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman

Working...