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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Depends on what you're doing (Score 1) 555

Exactly - 90+% of programmers are only writing straight-forward business programs. You don't *need* to understand the intricacies of, say, finite fields unless you're one of the hundred people in the world researching new crypto.

Even the math that is very important for many programmers (say, relative time complexity of algorithms, or set unions/intersections) is pretty dissimilar to what we Americans teach as "math" to our kids, and can largely be intuited.

I say this with a minor in math - it's really not that important for coding.

Comment Re:At least a call girl is honest (Score 3, Insightful) 449

It's kinda screwed up how you're blaming the women for "facilitating cheating" and causing dudes to lose their community standing and commit suicide. As opposed to blaming the cheating men - you know, the ones with an actual obligation to their wife and kids.

Like I hear what you're saying - it's not good to get involved and be "the other woman." But their fault is minuscule next to the cheater's.

Comment Re:Potentially revolutionary for psychiatric medic (Score 1) 39

My worry with this thinking (determining who "really needs it") is that no test is perfect, and it needs to be really really good before it's okay to use it as diagnosis (and refuse care to those who don't pass the test).

Even if it's 95% effective, I'd hate to be the one-in-twenty person who is wrongly told "Nope, you're faking it, no brain medicine for you."

Comment Re:Piss off- text of her blog which was taken down (Score 2) 229

That actually sounds pretty sensible. It seems like much of her frustration is from people blindly running static analysis tools on their code, finding false-positive vulns, and wasting Oracle's time and making it more difficult to identify legitimate security vulnerabilities.

Much more reasonable than the summary made it out to be, thanks.

Comment Re:Showed too much of his hand (Score 2) 458

A much bigger problem is how your actions split the vote up. Say you run a "referendum ticket" with yourself and your left-wing Real President.

If the voter has two tickets: "you + lefty" vs. "righty", then you conflate left-wing vs whatever you're referending on - you can't know who supported the referendum, and who simply didn't want righty. So you say, "I know, I'll run another ticket with me + right-wing candidate," at which point you're now splitting the right-wing ticket (because votes don't magically sum), and the left-wing candidate will likely win regardless of support for your referendum.

So you introduce a 4th ticket, with lefty alone, so any voter can vote for left, right, left+you, or right+you. That sounds fair, right? Unless there's any correlation between party & support for your referendum. Let's say the left party prefers the referendum 80-20, and right party support for the referendum is about 50-50, and overall voter preference is 60-40 for right party. The winner of the ticket would be you+lefty (with 32% of the vote), even though 60% of people voted for righty.

TL;DR - first-past-the-pole only barely works with two candidates. You can't co-opt it to do a referendum.

I was playing poker the other night... with Tarot cards. I got a full house and 4 people died. -- Steven Wright