Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Easy to read" is non-sense (Score 4, Insightful) 413

by Capt.Albatross (#49743603) Attached to: The Reason For Java's Staying Power: It's Easy To Read

If a piece of code is well written...

This is not an article about what is possible, it is about what actually happens. I have seen incredible abuses of operator overloading, for example. I have also seen some highly confused Java, but its pedestrian syntax seems to make it a little harder to write cryptic bad code in.

Comment: Re:Fourth power rule of thumb (Score 2) 826

by Capt.Albatross (#49736785) Attached to: Oregon Testing Pay-Per-Mile Driving Fee To Replace Gas Tax

Road wear is often estimated as the fourth power of axle weight. So I imagine the final regulation will include road wear as a factor.

That is an admirably rational argument that I fear won't stand up to politicians' desire to pander to car manufacturers and dealers, oil companies, and that part of the electorate who feel entitled to drive a big vehicle that they have no use case for and can't really afford to run. I hope I am wrong.

Comment: Re:Tiversa breached systems? (Score 3, Informative) 65

So Tiversa breached systems to get data from them to show the system owner that they needed their services?

But if Tiversa did breach those systems, then they did need Tiversa's services didn't they?

Yet the linked-to article says "If Wallace is telling the truth, the FTC aggressively prosecuted a company based on bogus evidence."

The only way I can see the evidence being bogus is if Wallace exploited a position of trust granted to him by the target company, and not even necessarily then. Whatever the truth is, the report is not self-consistent. Apparently, rational analysis and critical thinking are not employed at CNN - but we suspected that, anyway.

Comment: Re: News? (Score 1) 425

by Capt.Albatross (#49623419) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

The 10x rule is that the best developers are 10x as productive as the worst 10 developers. That's all it says. So you can replace them with 10 worse developers, that's the whole frickin' point of the 10x rule.

I am not aware of any study that shows that arbitrarily complex tasks (a distributed operating system, an AI project such as Watson, an airplane fly-by-wire system...) can be completed solely by a sufficient number of bottom-of-the-barrel programmers. I don't recall any such claim in The Mythical Man-Month, but it has been a while since I read it - perhaps you could cite the chapter that references such a study, so I can look it up in my copy?

Comment: Negative Productivity (re: News?) (Score 1) 425

by Capt.Albatross (#49623277) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

It's not bimodal but 10x rule still applies.

There's no point in trying to assign a ratio to it, because the worst developers have zero or negative productivity, on account of the damage that they do to projects by checking in inordinately complicated code that fails mysteriously, or simply by messing up everyone else's schedule by failing to deliver their part. This is not a hypothetical argument; I have several specific people from my personal experience of corporate development in mind (all in the past, fortunately.)

Comment: Re:Double jeopardy ? (Score 1) 84

Thank you for your highly informative comment about Goldman Sachs indemnifying its employees for legal fees.

It seems that Goldman Sachs may be hoist by its own petard here, if the intent behind this provision was, at least in part, to enable 'aggressive' behavior by its officers and employees (i.e. to flirt with arguably illegal behavior).

Comment: Re:'Stealing' (Score 1) 84

You are not the only person here to make a case against the conviction on the basis of the meaning of 'stealing', but such arguments don't get anywhere, as the law contains precise definition of what the word is intended to mean in this case (if it actually says 'stealing', which I doubt.) A more pertinent question might be how a matter that should fall under civil / contract law has been turned into a criminal offense.

On the other hand, your characterization of Goldman Sachs' behavior is spot-on.

Comment: Re:Is this shocking? (Score 1) 63

I am not shocked, but I am confused. Why would they give bad software to their customers, but give good software to the testers? The marginal cost of software is zero.

The good software is not theirs, it is Bitdefender's, and it does not have a zero marginal cost unless they steal it. That would not be unknown, of course, but this company may be too large, and have big enough aspirations, for that not to be an option.

I also tend to agree with those who suspect they are selling to customers who don't like to be reminded that using keygens is risky.

Comment: Re:Is this shocking? (Score 1) 63

Very few of the tests out there check for false positives, so it is easy to game the results.

I see. In that case, shouldn't the story be "AV Tests are Stupid" rather than "Chinese Company Sort of Cheats on a Test Designed to Make Cheating Easy"?

No, the testing organizations here are competent. It is the "let's have the intern do an antivirus review" articles in publications having no particular reputation in security matters that should be treated with suspicion.

Comment: Re:39/100 is the new passing grade. (Score 1) 174

And those that are labeling a score of 39/100 "not bad at all" should have their head checked.

At least they should have their studies replicated.

The comment that several of the failed replications were "broadly similar" but failed to reach statistical significance leads me to wonder if there has been any data cherry-picking in some of the original studies.

Comment: Re:No, but... (Score 2) 109

Indeed. There is a widespread fallacy, in business as well as education, that any number you can assign to something is inherently meaningful, and conversely, if you cannot assign an 'objective' quantity to something, it must not be important. I suspect that business schools have done a lot to spread this fallacy (including into education), though I don't have the numbers to prove it...

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz