Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Your Article Is All Fluff, Reader Finds (Score 1) 411

by Atzanteol (#49033689) Attached to: Your Java Code Is Mostly Fluff, New Research Finds

This is just me probably - but WTF is with languages making semicolons optional? Require them or don't allow them. Making them optional is a pain in the ass for somebody who is used to adding them since it will cause me to sometimes use them and sometimes not. I *hate* having this inconsistency in my code...

I've never quite understood the hate for the semicolon - but I type it so reflexively now that maybe I don't realize how difficult it is for newbs?

Comment: Not me. (Score 3, Insightful) 140

by Atzanteol (#49002161) Attached to: Why It's Important That the New Ubuntu Phone Won't Rely On Apps

'When you want to listen to Nas's Illmatic you don't think "I want to fire up Grooveshark so I can listen to Illmatic." You just think "I really want to listen to the one of the greatest rap albums of all time right now."'

Not me. I do think "Should I fire-up Subsonic and pre-load a bunch of music for later off-line use or stream now from Pandora?" Apps give not only content but specific functionality for their use-cases.

Maybe I'm showing my age - but I prefer my apps to provide specific functionality rather than these sort of "mashups" where we just put a bunch of crap in front of the user and hope they find what they were trying to do.

Comment: Re:Literally? (Score 2) 645

by Atzanteol (#49001783) Attached to: Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?
You may be using too restrictive of a meaning though. What if I phrased it this way:
Fox News is doing ISIS' work for them.

That would seem to make sense regardless of whether Fox News is getting any monetary reward right? And I can be said to be working "for somebody" without being paid by them if I labor on their behalf. And I could say that somebody I trick into doing my work is "working for me."

I don't even think this is an archaic usage. Seems pretty common to me.

Comment: Re:Won't be enough (Score 1) 176

*I* think it's funny that you believe being overly pedantic is going to help move the discussion forward. Nerds or not we should all know how to have a conversation without assuming things not in evidence. And still you persist with believing the OP thinks there is "no risk". Perhaps nerds don't know how to ask clarifying questions?

Build a system that even a fool can use and only a fool will want to use it.