Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why is this dribble on the front page? (Score 1) 445 445

you can't make a statement such as "10% of them are green"....You don't seem to understand infinity is not simply a big number.

And you don't seem to have much of an imagination. Can't you think of a single formulation that would produce 10% green marbles in an infinite set?

What if we had a barrel that was infinitely deep, and filled with marbles in sequence: 9 red, 1 green, 9 red, 1 green...?

You're kind of obnoxious. This is /. - we all took math in university. This kind of pedantic crap is like arguing over "who" vs "whom" in any conversation not already centered on linguistics. It makes you feel smart, and no one cares.

Comment: Re:Your vote is wasted unless you vote 3rd party (Score 1) 609 609

That's an interesting definition of the word "waste" - choosing no effect over a small effect.

Maybe you're suggesting that *everyone* do that? In that case, the effect of your vote is dwarfed by the massive effort you'll need to invest to get *everyone* to vote third-party.

What I'm saying is: be realistic; it's not so simple. Simply voting third-party is a waste, by any practical definition of the word. The effect is more negligible by an order of magnitude than an R/D vote. If you want to make a change, come up with a better idea and push that. Your position basically amounts to taking your ball and going home, while ignoring the millions of other people still playing.

Want to make a real difference? Primaries. A ton of people are going to vote R/D, and you have almost no power to change that. But you can change what R and D stand for. The differences between primary candidates can be immense - far more than the difference between "Generic R" and "Generic D".

Comment: Re:Verifiable and Anonymous (Score 1) 258 258

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only problem is securing the endpoint, and that's a simple fix. Rather than opening the floodgates and letting *all* devices access online voting portals, we could set aside public spaces on election day for online voting. Private booths could be provided to avoid prying eyes.

Comment: Re:Huge red flag about the survey (Score 4, Insightful) 428 428

If I need to know about executeFoo() in SomeLibrary, I can:

  • Google "SomeLibrary executeFoo"
  • Go to SomeLibrary.com, and navigate through Support->Documents->API->executeFoo
  • Thumb through a dead-tree SomeLibrary book until reaching executeFoo

I've tried all three, and vastly prefer the simple Google search. Not only will SomeLibrary.com be in the first 3 results (assuming their documentation doesn't suck), but there's a good chance you'll find a StackOverflow thread that not only explains executeFoo, but also covers the caveats and options better than the documentation.

Code samples tend to be more elegant than my own code. Many questions have multiple samples by multiple authors refined by multiple editors over multiple years. In comparison, I find API documentation often turns stale, or the samples are too simple to cover the cases I'm interested in. I don't "spend my life copy-pasting" - code samples tend to be useless for any real-life task. But I do get to see a gallery of how other people have solved similar problems.

Comment: Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score 2) 157 157

Damn right I'll be outraged. This type of astroturfing hurts both sides of the argument by preventing an actual exchange of ideas. It's FUD designed to reduce the credibility of any claims, making it harder for an uninformed person to become informed.

Comment: Re:Enjoy Your New Internet Taxes (Score 3, Insightful) 157 157

I was recently reading a very interesting article about paid Russian trolls. They'll go to all the small-town Russian blogs and post the same types of rants. But they don't just post pro-gov't rants. They've got this whole cast of characters and script where one person makes a seemingly-well-reasoned pro-gov't argument, while the anti-gov't "villain" will respond with something ridiculous or completely off-point.

It's not enough to make your side seem strong, you also have to make your opponents look foolish.

So when I see a seemingly-well-reasoned-but-wrong "government regulation is bad" argument followed by a "higher taxes and more expensive ISPs are good" argument - both by Anonymous Cowards - I think Soviet Russia. You guys are the worst kind of scum.

Comment: Re:Advanced is good enough (Score 1) 220 220

Exactly. I rated myself an expert because that is how people see me. I'd wager that most "Averages" would actually be considered "Experts" by my clients, not because they're in the upper echelon of all developers, but because even Average development skills puts you far in the upper echelon of society.

Now, if I were rating myself against my peers, I'd say Average or Advanced. But I don't think anyone would honestly rate themselves Expert against their peers in "programming". I've known "Java" experts and "Machine Learning" experts and "Computer Science" experts, but "programming" is such a broad term, I don't think I'd apply the Expert label to anyone I know.

In case of injury notify your superior immediately. He'll kiss it and make it better.

Working...