Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Chrome Goat ​Teleportati​on - Best bug ever!

    Harlequin said:
    Bass said:

    I see where you're going but here's a (poor I admit) analogy that goes with what you say:

    A company buys 1,000 2009 Honda Civics, paints them, calls it a Super Duper Auto 2010. Sells. Profit.


    I don't see how "moving the web forward" and "anyone can add features" meld. You can't have a product roadmap with thousands of voices chiming in.

    Yeah you can, you only pick the voices which have merit. It's natural selection.

  • NSF/governm​ent funding of open software development

    CreamFilling512 said:

    I don't think government should fund research that's in profitable industries, so CS research should be funded by corporations, which it largely is anyway.

    Medicine (esp Pharmacology) by far gets the most government funding at least in the USA, and it's a huge huge successful and profitable industry. It seems delaying death is one of the biggest concerns of modern society. Smiley


    Corporations have their place, but not in pure science. Corporations aren't really interested in doing fundamental/theoretical research, only stuff that can quickly be turned into a product (at least before the patent expires). Many things in CS are worthy of research that will not get funding in a purely capitalistic system.

  • NSF/governm​ent funding of open software development

    PaoloM said:


    Hell yes and hell yes!

    Yes, I especially think AI research needs more government funding. That's something that has been in stagnation in many ways and it's a shame. I also think anything the government funds should be licensed exclusively open source and in a way that encourages commercial derivatives of the software (ie, BSD license or public domain).

  • NSF/governm​ent funding of open software development

    PaoloM said:


    Hell yes and hell yes!

    Really? What FreeBSD code made into Windows?




    PS: I'm not trying to say BSD code in Windows is a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite.

  • NSF/governm​ent funding of open software development

    Various governments funding open source development is nothing new. For instance, FreeBSD was funded in part by a DARPA grant (same agency that funded the creation of the Internet). Parts of FreeBSD even made it into Windows. There is many other examples.


    The US government finances medical research, physics, astronomy, biology. Do you think funding computer science, even involving software development like a regular science is a good thing? And if so should funding be increased?

  • Blogging Engine

    Zeus said:

    Oxite (Oxite is an open source, web standards compliant, blog engine built on ASP.NET MVC.)

    Oxite is also made by the original C9 developers. Some of them are now focusing their work on an entire open source CMS written in ASP.NET MVC.

  • Chrome Goat ​Teleportati​on - Best bug ever!

    Harlequin said:
    stevo_ said:

    What I don't get is: "An open-source browser project to help move the web forward."


    How is open sourcing a browser going to help web standards?

    If IE was open source, anyone could add features to it for instance.


    Believe it or not, a very large amount of the code of Google Chrome was not written by Google. In fact, you can find substantial amounts of code from Apple and Nokia in Google Chrome. And some from the KDE project as well. Welcome to open source. Smiley


    Google is itself an open source success story. If there was no open source, they might not even exist. Their whole business is built on Linux, Python, Java, etc. and they customize everything for their purposes.


    If you want to know more about this software development paradigm, this is a good book to read:


  • Fingerprint login to application

    W3bbo said:

    Rather than answer your question directly, I'm going to dissuade you entirely:


    I don't feel biometrics are a suitable replacement for passwords, because things like fingerprints can easily be duplicated (or sawn off, if necessary). They're of the "something you have" variety of security system, whereas passwords are "something you know" and can easily be changed over time and not easily lifted off someone (Rubberhose cryptography notwithstanding, but that's what password age, plausible-deniability, and duress-code policies are for, none of these are thing you can do with biometric security).


    Fingerprint/biometric security is more of a security theatre: it sure looks impressive to the MBA/PHB-types, especially because of its cliched use as plot-devices in Hollywood, but if you want a proper secure system you should use some kind of two-factor authentication system. The "know" requirement is easily met with a dictionary attack-proof password and the "have" requirement met by a smartcard or SecureID-esque keyfob.


    I'll also mention there are a variety of different ways to read fingerprints, those desktop scanners you can get for under $50 are easy enough to fool. There are also different ways for fingerprint readers to work in a security system: the system could use a password database which is 'unlocked' via the fingerprint reader (either by looking for a match and using machine-key or user-key symmetric encryption) or one that uses some kind of hash of the fingerprint as key in itself, but for that to work reliably you need to allow lots of tolerance in your matching algorithm, which makes the reader easier to fool. I'm not an expert on fingerprint recognition, but I stand by my original point that fingerprint security is mostly for show and shouldn't seriously be considered in a secure system.


    One argument for using fingerprint security in low-security environments is convinience, that you can read a fingerprint faster than you can recall and type a password. I'm not buying it, I can type my password in under a half-second (if my hands are already on my keyboard) so that's got to be moot.

    It's worth noting some people fingers have issues with fingerprint recognition (ie where the fingerprint is deformed from scarring, really not as uncommon as you'd think). For a more secure biometric system you should be multi-modal, meaning you should have face+iris+finger instead of just finger.


    Besides being relatively easy to fool most fingerprinter scanners, the algorithms tend to have a false positive rate that tends to be much higher then brute forcing a standard password.


    And yes all algorithms have a false positive rate. Just like most computer vision problems, the algorithms tend to work probabilistically, ie, it might spit a value saying it's 99.4% sure it's the positive match, and it's up to you the programmer to say "that's okay".


    The more you reduce false positives, the better chance of false negatives. They tend to tweak these algorithms to have much more false negatives then false positives, for obvious reasons.


  • CSV needs a ​replacement.​..

    How about people just start using XML or if it's too terse, JSON? Smiley

  • Meta Data: The devil's in the details?

    SpectateSwamp said:
    Harlequin said:

    You are angry and I want the last word on MetaData. Just like a lot of other threads the BBG's have discussed. They can't imagine that any more can be said, ever.


    The 12 hour or 1/2 Day clock is an intended EVIL against humanity -
    indicting every human on Earth as Dumb, Educated Stupid and Evil -
    for imaginary Cubed Earth has 4 
    Days within simultaneous rotation.
      One God would equal a God Dunce
    as Humans evolve from Children