|
Simples. Hover over the message, you should see a green up-triangle to the left. Click!
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
How about a random number from 0 to 16. And then a random timeout between tweets from our hour to one year.
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the whole point of Twitter - assuming that it has one - that it's custom made for people whose attention spans fizzle out somewhere round the 140 character mark?
Any attempt to lengthen that will just push "#TLDR" to the top of the trending #Twit-tag list.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
This is an absolutely horrible idea. The entire soul of Twitter is in the brevity of expression. Allowing users to write longer 1/many
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers have created a computer authentication system that uses your heart's shape and size to sign in. "That I could be kinda human If I only had a heart."
I figured they were already using all the Grinch references
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers wasting more money would have been a more correct headline 
It does not add anything above a generic token, does not add security or value; it is merely something that proves who you say you are, which can be done much easier and cheaper.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I ♥ this.
(Apologies to the typographically challenged)
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
They only forgot to prove that heart's shape and size are unique enough... A small detail...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: They only forgot to prove that heart's shape and size are unique enough... A small detail...
They don't need to.
The heart is not used as a primary key; it is not used to uniquely identify a specific user. It is used as a way of the user "owning" something that cannot be changed easily and which helps in verification.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Researchers have created a computer authentication system that uses your heart's shape and size to sign in.
If it is not unique all the same-hearted can log in to the system...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
No, they can't.
Is your password unique? No, your username is. Does the username guarantee who you are? No, that is what a password is for, it is a secret only you and the server knows. Same for your heart; its size does not guarantee you are actually you, but most other people will not know its size (and shape, and sound). Would also be harder to replicate; I mean, how do I steal your heart? 
So yes, this could be used as a means to prove that you are who you say you are - mind you, not much as a replacement for the password, but more as an extra security-measure.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I see (saw) you point - jut can't see all those things addressed in the article...
Fortunately one need not cut one's own heart out to use it for authentication... 
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: jut can't see all those things addressed in the article...
I did not read it; wouldn't make sense to use it as a primary key - any change in the size of your heart (due to sport, disease, replacement) would cause you to loose your identity.
Now, combined with face-recognition and their bluetooth-signal, it may be a nice way to try to identify customers.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Today we are open sourcing Abseil, a collection of libraries drawn from the most fundamental pieces of Google’s internal codebase. I'm not convinced that using a word for 'falling face-first from a height' makes for a good code name
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I can't hear you for all the other noise on GitHub. 
|
|
|
|
|
Will the successor library be called Aufprall?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Software development is fundamentally an exercise in learning, while the traditional command-and-control style of project management seeks to optimize the execution of known, repeatable processes at scale. "Project management is one of those applications that everyone knows someone else should be using."
|
|
|
|
|
So, I have a point to make (I'm sure you're not surprised.)
The learning part of software development should mostly occur before the software development process starts. Yes, there's always the "WTF, we didn't think of that" or "WTF, this open source third party library doesn't work even though we tested it beforehand" or "WTF, NuGet actually really does suck"...
...but the point being, if you analyze the requirements sufficiently, iterate a plan, vet the tech (oooh, alliteration!) before vesting in it ("vet the tech before vesting" -- a new slogan!) you should have a reasonably predictable, and importantly, manageable course plotted.
And where management comes in is to make sure that everyone stays on course, and to make adjustments to the course as problems (hopefully small) come up.
But then again, all of the above is anathema to Agile. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: analyze the requirements sufficiently
I've long concluded that the point of most "project management" is to avoid that phase.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: And where management comes in is to make sure that everyone stays on coursed, and to make adjustments to the course as make problems (hopefully if you are lucky, small) to come up.
FTFY  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Google Shopping will remain part of Google, but will be operated and funded independently. Fingers crossed, pinkie swear, definitely not evil, "separating".
|
|
|
|
|
A small group of programmers wants to change how we code—before catastrophe strikes. tl;dr: Sofware sucks, so we need more software
Or something like that. Kind of longer than most of the items I post, but I think you're up to it.
|
|
|
|
|
kinda mandatory
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Code turns to spaghetti when it accretes over many years, with feature after feature piling on top of, and being woven around, what’s already there
Not necessarily. Code can easily start out as spaghetti.
|
|
|
|
|
Very true.
I was thinking today about the Excel and Word code bases. Can you imagine what they probably look like after all this time?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
