Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Infrequent (Score 4, Insightful) 176

'Once every 500 years' is not equal to 'with 500 years interval'. The next Carrington Event could be tomorrow.

Worse, even events less powerful than the Carrington Event occur more frequently than the Carrington Event and can cause significant damage to our high voltage infrastructure.

Comment Re:QA is not the problem (Score 1) 323

What seems more amazing is that a simple software check pre-launch (i.e. "do all the sensors think they are pointed up?") was not part of the SOP. Given that their exact function is orientation detection, skipping the opportunity for self-test via that function is somewhat baffling.

No - the sensors were 'angular velocity sensors'. They do not measure orientation but change of orientation. Is a bit more difficult to check pre-launch than an orientation sensor.

Comment Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (Score 2) 240

If there is spyware on a machine, doing it's dirty thing without the users knowledge or consent, then any piece of event logging, keystroke logging or pictures taken is suspect. It could be produced by the user, by other spyware, or by a hacker with access to the machine.

The very fact that the 'evidence' is collected by spyware is full evidence that spyware is performing activities the user is unaware about. It implicitely proofs the machine is not under full user control. It therefore proofs not all actions performed at the machine are endorsed by the user.

Since one piece of spyware/malware managed to get installed on the computer means users anti virus and anti malware software is not up to its task. If that is the case, then the installation of other spyware/malware packages is very likely. Meaning there is reasonable doubt about who or what did a download.
And you can not convict a suspect if there is reasonable doubt - not yet anyway.

Comment Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (Score 1) 240

A picture of the user sitting at the keyboard is no evidence if other software/spyware capable of downloading copyrighted has been installed (without user knowledge or consent) at the same computer.

All the picture proofs is that said user was using the computer at a certain point in time. It doesn't proof the user was doing the download of the copyrighted material. If there was other spyware running at the computer, then that other piece of spyware could be performing the download. All recorded keystrokes, mouse clicks and other logged event are suspect if spyware packages are running at the a machine.
If such a picture were to be accepted as 'evidence' in court, then hackers could easily frame anybody they dislike. Just install the hackers spyware package, spoof some 'evidence' towards the corporate spyware and another sucker gets owned.

Comment Re:An IP address doesn't identify a person (Score 1) 240

Spyware like this can prove that someone did indeed commit acts of copyright infringement as alleged.

No, it can't. Since the TFA talks about "a group of 13 industry associations", we would get every one of these industry associations to install it's own spyware package on your machine.
So if copyrights were to be infringed from your machine, who can prove that YOU were to one to do it, and not one of the spyware packages? All one can prove is that it happened from your machine, not WHO or WHAT did it. A compromised system is by definition out of your control.

Submission + - Alpha Centauri B has an Earth mass planet (

VitaminB52 writes: Astronomers have announced they have found a planet orbiting one of the stars making up the most famous star in the sky: Alpha Centauri, the closest star system to our own! Orbital period of the planet is 3.24 days, far too close to the star and therefore too hot to sustain any kind of life as we know it.

Comment Logical limits to your support period and efforts (Score 1) 384

You need an OS plus development software plus (possible) database software and webserver software to build your software product. Each of these software products you use has its own end-of-support data. You should never promise support on your product beyond the end-of-support date for a software product needed to support your product. E.g.: if fixing an issue with your product requires fixing an issue with the OS, and the OS is out of support, then you are out of luck.

Any support on your product beyond the end-of-support date for a product needed to perform this support should be on a best effort basis, never on result commitment basis.
Also consider increasing your hourly rate by 10% for each year beyond the end-of-support date of the products you use - this encourages your client to buy an upgrade to a new version of your product, build with current tools.

Comment Re:We have another client that wants B (Score 1) 133


Fixed price contract for custom software - so no competitors for that project, and no other clients for that piece of software.

A better argument would be: Delivering a B would hurt our long term reputation.
Works only with managers who think long term (next project and beyond), not short term (next bonus).

It all comes down to managing your manager - this can be much harder than writing level A code :-) .

Comment Re:Get ready for a new wave of poorly coded softwa (Score 1) 133

Lazy programmers aren't writing efficient code, they're just relying on Moore's Law to push them through.


It's not about lazy programmers, it's all about calculating managers.

To cite one of my managers during a project review:
Next time you're not going to perfect our code like you did on this project. If we measure software quality on an A to F scale, and if our client is satisfied with quality level C, then stop improving your code once you hit that C level. Going for the A will only increase project cost, but not our revenues..

Comment Re:What about the buoyancy of this building? (Score 1) 269

If they were smart they would put 3-4 floors above ground to help with this problem

That's hardly sufficient to counteract the upward buoyancy of the 65 subterranean levels.
Think about 20-30 levels above groundlevel to get the job done - which is not an option given the laws against highrise buildings mentioned in TFA.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.