jarrett

30 ms·

211.
by jarrett 13y ago
> countermove: he works it out and blocks your magic query He very well might. But my estimation of the thief's skills is low. I could be wrong, of course. > A unique sequence of legitimate requests might be more difficult to for
212.
by jarrett 13y ago
If you have a hard time determining their IP, here's a trick that might work. Visit their site with a unique but innocuous-looking path or query that would never be accessed by a normal user. For example: http://4co.in/
213.
by jarrett 13y ago
> I'm quite sure such "anti-depressants" (what a misnomer) had a lot more to do with the suicide than anything Penn or any other institution or individual could possibly have. Are you basing this claim on the following stu
214.
by jarrett 13y ago
The commercial nature of the alleged infringement it doesn't necessarily determine the outcome. So you could have one case where the judge rules for the plaintiff because the use is commercial, and another where the judge rules for the
215.
by jarrett 13y ago
> But does require that the misuse be in a different class, IIRC. It's not a requirement. Rather, the statute states that it can be in a different class. But dilution and tarnishment can occur in the same class. From 15 USC § 1125
216.
by jarrett 13y ago
Intent is one of the factors for trademark infringement. So it might matter a little. You could argue that the statement shows the proprietors' intent is at least partly commercial. On the other hand, that much would be fairly easy to
217.
by jarrett 13y ago
You're speaking about the "likelihood of confusion" standard for trademark infringement, I presume. If a company employee admitted to a fact that was damaging to the company's case, then that could be a real problem. T
218.
by jarrett 13y ago
> The part that I don't understand is why the programmer even has to acknowledge the subpoena at all or show up to court. That's actually the whole point of subpoenas. They're a step up from a simple letter demanding infor
219.
by jarrett 13y ago
It's bigger than that. Theoretically, anyone can use the law to go after anyone, anywhere, for anything. For example, the government of California, where I don't live and have never once been, could accuse me of trafficking drugs
220.
by jarrett 13y ago
Ouch! Yes, that can happen, and I'd argue it's pathological. Let me rephrase that series of events as follows: 1. Artificial deadline is set. 2. Artificial deadline is unnecessarily converted into crucial deadline. 3. Code quality
221.
by jarrett 13y ago
I looked at Crudzilla. (Is that the product you're referring to?) I don't really have the time to test-run a new framework right now. Perhaps you could give a quick overview of how you're solving the key problem I identified
222.
by jarrett 13y ago
Exactly. The author cites a Christmas promotion as an example. Yes, those types of projects exist, but in my experience, they're a tiny minority. Almost every deadline I've ever faced was set artificially. The developers estimate
223.
by jarrett 13y ago
This is a problem, and I've long mused over possible solutions. Every time I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the solution isn't a new approach to software engineering, a new language that blows away every paradigm, s
224.
by jarrett 13y ago
Yes, I believe so. I was just addressing a the original suggestion, which was to avoid using promises and use vanilla callbacks instead. In that architecture, exceptions don't seem to be workable.
225.
by jarrett 13y ago
Good point. I had previously thought the callback in some way "remembered" who called it, and could bubble an exception back up to the caller's try/catch block. But you've set me straight. Further proving the point
226.
by jarrett 13y ago
> If an error happens, an exception should be raised. For better or worse, Node's best practice seems to be to propagate errors via the err parameter in each callback. E.g. `function myCallback(err, data)` where data represents the
227.
by jarrett 13y ago
> Look at the balance of harms in this example. Your argument proceeds from the assumption that the balance of harms matters. Legally, it does not where political speech is concerned. This is pretty much the closest thing to a legal ab
228.
by jarrett 13y ago
I tend to think Pickering v Board of Education makes the speech protected even if the speaker identifies himself/herself as a government employee. At least, I would argue that such self-identification is so crucial to the speaker&#x2
229.
by jarrett 13y ago
Do government employees enjoy full protection from the First Amendment? It's not a simple yes or no answer. Whether a given utterance is protected depends on a variety of factors, but probably the most important one for low-ranking TSA
230.
by jarrett 13y ago
Yes, that would definitely be a viable strategy. It's probably the easiest one, and it's what I would do. In general, using HTTPS for anything related to your bug bounty program is probably good hygiene. Though even without that,
231.
by jarrett 13y ago
> with or without the startup's consent I'm not convinced this is possible in the long run. The idea seems to be that employees can't sell the shares themselves, but can sell the kind of derivative around which Equidate is
232.
by jarrett 13y ago
In theory, PGP public keys shouldn't depend on being sent over a more-secure medium like SSL, because they're signed. One of the main points of PGP's design is that you can't spoof a public key, because you can't
233.
by jarrett 13y ago
I said you can use anti-patterns in small programs, not that singleton is an example of an anti-pattern. I don't believe singleton is so terrible as to be an anti-pattern, even for big programs. I just think it has some downsides that
234.
by jarrett 13y ago
Certainly! Tiny programs are the exception to most best practices. (Not security best practices, but I digress.) I write a lot of little programs, and they're certainly not all works of art. Sometimes you need to bang out a tiny progra
235.
by jarrett 13y ago
I'm giving up singletons because hidden dependencies are a source of bugs. Let me make it more concrete: Suppose classes A, B, and C use singleton class S, and S has state. Via the hidden dependency on S, it's possible for A, B, a
236.
by jarrett 13y ago
> But these are all very convoluted compared to having a single class-method in the class itself which returns a shared (static) object. I used to think the same thing. But lately, I've come to think it's better for code to exp
237.
by jarrett 13y ago
Under US law, consideration has long been a specter haunting the enforceability of open source licenses--specifically enforcement by the user against the copyright holder. Here's the problem: If the copyright holder gains nothing in th
238.
by jarrett 13y ago
As another reply said, context is everything. To elaborate: If you phrase it exactly as you said, I can imagine a lawsuit being successful. The comment--specifically, the phrase "you can get"--evidences a reckless disregard for th
239.
by jarrett 13y ago
Yep! Another huge benefit of static typing, particularly for systems that deal with lots of numbers that mean different things. (Some are lengths, some are durations, some are speeds, etc.) Don't want your airplane to crash because you
240.
by jarrett 13y ago
I'm admittedly new to the language, but my convention has been as follows: Declare types of all named functions (i.e. not lambdas). This serves two purposes. First, it makes your code more self-documenting. When I look at a function, p

More ›