Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:News? (Score 1) 242

by jellomizer (#49621245) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

I think it is in terms of observations.
The Rock Stars, the company will go out of its way to try to keep them
The under performers, will just stay at the same place as they have a hard time getting a job elsewhere.
So the organization has the long timers as the Rock Stars or the Under performers.
The middle people will often stay there for a few years and move on. So they are in flux, and that makes it hard for our observations to see the middle ground, as the majority.

Comment: Simple Demand. (Score 2) 133

The communities are just following the stupidity of the political view points.
Can we frack in your community? Sure... However we want our water quality (including well water, checked once a month at your expense, for as long as the pumps are active and 10 years after. (This is relatively inexpensive demand). If there is a problem with water quality that has changed sense fracking. Then you need to supply us with clean water for 150 year or until the water quality returns.

If your method is as safe and clean as you state, then you shouldn't have to worry about it.

   

Comment: Re:Make them drink it ... (Score 1) 133

The chemical, which is also commonly used in paint and cosmetics, is known to have caused tumors in rodents, though scientists have not determined if those carcinogenic properties translate to humans.

Those are some of my favorite weasel phrases in this type of article.

"Just because the chemical strips paint and causes mammals to dissolve into puddles of toxic goo does not mean it's unsafe for humans."

So drink up, Mr Koch.

Comment: You cant win... (Score 1) 23

by jellomizer (#49620727) Attached to: The BBC Looks At Rollover Bugs, Past and Approaching

If you reuse code, you get rollover bugs.
If you start over from scratch you get brand new bugs.

Reusing the code, you have a lot of the issue from the past already fixed, so you are not introducing bugs that you had in the past.
Making new code, you can modernise the code set, so you don't run into particular troubled code, and is easier to follow.

Programmers are human beings, they make mistakes, they can't give 110% every day. Even the best of them will often have a stupid bug, that they can't believe that they had slip.

Comment: Re:Defense of the Article (Score 1) 242

by eldavojohn (#49620497) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

So there could be two groups, those who look to improve their skill, who quickly distance themselves from the group that doesn't. Of course, there will still be wide variance in skill between the members of each group. I'm sure you can think of other ways it could happen.

No, I can't. I started out and I sucked. I got better eventually through experience. In order for it to be truly bimodal, people have to start in either camp A or camp B and end in the same camp they started in. Because if you transition from one to another over time, any point in time will capture a group of people in between the modes. Now, you can argue that people don't spend much time in between those modes but you haven't presented any evidence for that. What's more likely is you have geocities coders on one tail and John Carmack/Linus Torvolds on the other tail. And in between are people like the presenter and I. And since I'm not instantaneously going from bad to good, the reality of the situation is most likely some degree of a normal curve filled with people trying to get better at programming or even just getting better though spending lots of time doing it and learning a little along the way.

For all your attacks on the presenter, your argument of a bi-modal distribution sounds more flawed to me. I would love to see your study and hear your argument.

Comment: Re:Technically C++ (Score 1) 163

by TheRaven64 (#49620005) Attached to: Singapore's Prime Minister Shares His C++ Sudoku Solver Code

General hint: If your functions are so long that having to (suppose this was indeed the case) declare/define all your variables at the top becomes a serious annoyance, then chances are that your functions are too long/do too much. Fix that instead.

More general hint: The principle of minimum scope exists for a reason. Declare your variables at the point where they can be initialised, not at some arbitrary point and you make life easier for people trying to understand the lifetime of the variable.

Introducing, the 1010, a one-bit processor. 0 NOP No Operation 1 JMP Jump (address specified by next 2 bits)

Working...