Forgot your password?

Comment: Put your suit on for a meeting or sweatpants at... (Score 1) 114

by Assmasher (#46777997) Attached to: Code Quality: Open Source vs. Proprietary


Most people will put more effort into something that will be public (both out of positive motivation and the negative motivation of shaming.)

Open Source will always, in general, be better than closed source. Again - in general. There are people who will engineer things properly irrespective of whether or not someone will be browsing your github account or checking it out of the company's private server... Too bad there's not more of them ;).


Code Quality: Open Source vs. Proprietary 114

Posted by Soulskill
from the put-your-money-where-your-code-is dept.
just_another_sean sends this followup to yesterday's discussion about the quality of open source code compared to proprietary code. Every year, Coverity scans large quantities of code and evaluates it for defects. They've just released their latest report, and the findings were good news for open source. From the article: "The report details the analysis of 750 million lines of open source software code through the Coverity Scan service and commercial usage of the Coverity Development Testing Platform, the largest sample size that the report has studied to date. A few key points: Open source code quality surpasses proprietary code quality in C/C++ projects. Linux continues to be a benchmark for open source quality. C/C++ developers fixed more high-impact defects. Analysis found that developers contributing to open source Java projects are not fixing as many high-impact defects as developers contributing to open source C/C++ projects."

Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires 418

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-totally-could-have-invented-flappy-birds dept.
msmoriarty writes: "According to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S.-based software developers, 56 percent expect to become millionaires in their lifetime. 66 percent also said they expect to get raises in the next year, despite the current state of the economy. Note that some of the other findings of the study (scroll to bulleted list) seem overly positive: 84 percent said they believe they are paid what they're worth, 95 percent report they feel they are 'one of the most valued employees at their organization,' and 80 percent said that 'outsourcing has been a positive factor in the quality of work at their organization.'"
United States

Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy 729

Posted by Soulskill
from the cats-and-dogs-governing-together dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from Princeton University and Northwestern University have concluded, after extensive analysis of 1,779 policy issues, that the U.S. is in fact an oligarchy and not a democracy. What this means is that, although 'Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance,' 'majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.' Their study (PDF), to be published in Perspectives on Politics, found that 'When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.'"
The Almighty Buck

IRS Can Now Seize Your Tax Refund To Pay a Relative's Debt 621

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the dead-...-beat-relatives? dept.
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "Just in time for the April 15 IRS filing deadline comes news from the Washington Post that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers expecting refunds are instead getting letters informing them of tax debts they never knew about: often a debt incurred by their parents. The government is confiscating their checks, sometimes over debts 20—30 years old. For example, when Mary Grice was 4 (in 1960), her father died ... 'Until the kids turned 18, her mother received survivor benefits from Social Security ... Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family in 1977. ... Four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. ... "It was a shock," says Grice, 58. "What incenses me is the way they went about this. They gave me no notice, they can't prove that I received any overpayment, and they use intimidation tactics, threatening to report this to the credit bureaus."' The Treasury Department has intercepted ... $75 million from debts delinquent for more than 10 years according to the department's debt management service. 'The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.'"

Comment: Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score 1) 469

There are people who insist that they can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts

So you can't? And hence you conclude no one can?
Sorry, that is bullshit!

Science and math proves all of these things wrong, yet people still insist they're right.

A contrair! Sciense and math exactly proof that. You have a braindead idea about math and sciense.
You can only hear up to like 20k Herz.
But there are so called overtones, multiples of the base frequency. In this case 40k, 60k, 80k 100k etc.
No human is able to hear 40k and above frequencies, but we all can hear if a 20k frequency is combined with an 40k overtone, or an 100k overtone even. Modern lossy compression algorithms cut off these overtones (as the overtone itself is unhearable) ... nevertheless we can hear if it is 'there' or not.

You, again - quite clearly, claim that "Sciense and math exactly proof" that people can high quality compressed audio and uncompressed audio.

You then claim you can hear frequencies outside of the human range of hearing because they are "combined".

You do not seem to realize that you are, at this point, arguing that you can hear overtones through what you refer to as being "combined" but that compression algorithms cut off these overtones.

As per your usual method of discussing with people you insinuated that the person you were replying to was "braindead" (your other preferred term is "idiot".) I applied your own negative terms to you because you used the non-sensical "combined".

Reading all of your posts it is clear that English is not your first language and that you don't understand that when you talk to other people who are detail oriented that it isn't their responsibility to figure out what you meant to say but simply to deal with what you did say.

I did not say anything about mp3s.

You didn't say anything about hearing the differences between "320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts"?

Well, we know that isn't true.

And I told you that three or four times now.

Are you a crazy person?

Comment: Re:Modern audiophiles are no different. (Score 1) 469

Even you hear the difference between a simple 16kHz wave and one that is accompanied by a 32kHz and 48kHz overtone

Of course you do, and as usual, you're making an "idiot" out of yourself for everyone to see by claiming that you're hearing is "beyond human."

You DO hear when there's an overtone, but you don't hear the overtone, you hear the effect the overtone has on the audible range frequencies. See the "scientific facts" relating to destructive/constructive interference. This effect IS captured by the ADC, but can be filtered depending upon the overtone.

You can easily Google for it.


Mr. Schmidt Goes To Washington: A Look Inside Google's Lobbying Behemoth 114

Posted by samzenpus
from the mr.-president-we-seem-to-be-alone dept.
barlevg (2111272) writes "In May 2012, in the midst of an FTC investigation into Google's search practices, the law school at George Mason University in Northern Virginia hosted a conference attended by congressmen, regulators and staffers. The topic: competition, search and social media. What none of the attendees of the conference knew was that Google was pulling many of the strings behind the event, even going so far as to suggest invited speakers. This event, as documented in The Washington Post is just a snapshot of the operations of one of the largest and highest spending lobbying entities in DC, a far cry from the one-man shop it started out as nine years ago, from a company "disdainful" of Washington's "pay-to-play" culture."

Comment: Re:Perhaps you should abstract your persistence mo (Score 1) 272

by Assmasher (#46718663) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which NoSQL Database For New Project?

Your talking about abstractions really makes not much sense, so I pray for the entroneurs you consult, good luck.

I'm sure it doesn't, because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand abstraction.

How can you be a competent architect when you don't understand abstraction? LOL.

In any case, you're a programmer, right?

Comment: Re:Perhaps you should abstract your persistence mo (Score 1) 272

by Assmasher (#46717739) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which NoSQL Database For New Project?

Your first post I answered to certailny was not clear about "abstracting away persistanve issues"

Are you an escaped inmate from a Guatemalan insane asylum?

The entire first post, including the title of the post, is explicitly about abstracting your persistence model.

"In other words, have your backend web services (presuming you're using them and not manually POSTing from a socket yourself to your own socket server) instantiate an instance of iMyDBAdapter and use it."

Maybe you don't find that clear, but that's because you apparently don't understand abstraction...

your naming examples like ValidateConnection or CheckConnection are certainly bad choices as an example.

The stupidity of your statement really cannot be overstated. You dislike ValidateConnection because you claim you will simply catch an exception when you connect; ergo, you are either connected or you are not. This, alone, is proof that you do not understand abstraction.

I'm a real programmer, not a manager.

And you'll apparently never get any further, because you'll need to understand abstraction before you can be an architect. I'm also not a programmer, I'm a software engineer (there's a difference that you're not aware of), a software architect, a founder, a co-founder, and I also perform technical due diligences for multiple Vencture Capital firms.

Abstracting away the fact that a Service is remote and not local leads to all forms of problems. It is very often. o good idea.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what you should abstract away. Yet again you demonstrate your lack of basic understanding of the purpose of abstraction. You think that abstracting away 'locality' is bad and leads to problems? Why on earth would it do that? LOL. Your abstraction layer should satisfy the requirements of the business logic, if locality is an issue (i.e. for performance) then your adapter implementation must account for that. The only time anyone using your abstraction layer should ever know anything about locality would be if that knowledge would be required so that the business logic could make a decision - otherwise, that sort of information should be encapsulated totally.

And no, I don't use that line often, actually I don't remember if I had used it already once.

Sure, I believe you, and you understand abstraction too.

Well, the application I'm working on right now...

Great, I hope you have a competent architect.

Comment: Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score 1) 630

by Assmasher (#46713699) Attached to: Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7

Seriously, look at the reaction process for what you're talking about ... you'll notice there is no reaction without adding oxygen ... in the form of water.

Did you even bother to read the article you linked to? LOL. It clearly states that it oxidizes several metals. It then goes on to describe the reaction that you're trying to claim is the only oxidation case. In fact, the article you linked lists at least four chemical oxidations above and beyond those involving metals.

You seem to only capable of reading about the ones that have to do with water. Rather selective of you.

But hey, don't let basic chemistry stand in your way of looking silly.

Don't let basic reading skills stand in your way of looking silly [sic].


Yes, you can. The article you linked points this out to you as well.


You appear to be obsessed with the colloquial definition of 'oxidize.' You should check out the formal definition; especially the part that relates it entirely to electron transfer.

See the stupid people who agree with me:

Don't just read the first part (the beginners' definition), read down to the "most important use of the terms oxidation" part...

Maybe I should have typed that in all caps so you could read it...

It is not every question that deserves an answer. -- Publilius Syrus