Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:News at 11.. (Score 1) 609

Copyright infringement is theft because it denies a copyright owner the ability to sell the product for which they have the copyright and thus they lose money.

Thanks for the nostalgia! I remember when people tried to claim that with a straight face back in the 80s, but no one believed it even then. Can you imagine that someone actually said that ridiculous crap in seriousness once? I'm glad we've moved past those ludicrously mind-bending contortions and can laugh about them now, knowing full well that no one actually thinks that way anymore.

Comment: Re:News at 11.. (Score 3, Insightful) 609

Sharing: Willingly giving a portion of your possessions

Bzzt. I can share hugs, music, friendship, laughter, pain, and joy with others, but I wouldn't call any of those "possessions".

to another, denying you use or benefit thereof.

That presumes scarcity. If I share your post on Twitter, you are not deprived of it. Neither would I be.

Comment: Re:Your job (Score 1) 219

by Just Some Guy (#48629963) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Can I Really Do With a Smart Watch?

Whatever the environment, there are jobs that require someone just to be there waiting for something unusual to happen. Even in the nuclear missile bunkers, I bet they spend about 95% of their time sitting around waiting for an alarm they hope never comes. You can only clean so much before it's time to lean. So what if OP works in a clean room? I bet there are plenty of "I'm paid to sit here" jobs in there, too.

Comment: Other hoaxes (Score 1) 100

by AnalogDiehard (#48609237) Attached to: The Joker Behind the Signetics 25120 Write-Only Memory Chip Hoax
There were other component hoaxes.

BD-1 Battery Discharger, also had a product spec printed. Marketing actually heard from a customer who wanted samples.

To compliment the Light Emitting Diode (LED), a company offered the Dark Emitting Diode (DED).

Hard to top the WOM though. I actually used that term in a meeting involving computers. Reaction was deer in the headlights from the IT folks. Had to quickly clue them in.

Comment: I remember records too well (Score 1) 433

by AnalogDiehard (#48596273) Attached to: Vinyl Record Pressing Plants Struggle To Keep Up With Demand
When I became old enough to afford my own music it was just before CDs became available. By then, plastic had replaced vinyl as the medium for records. I owned very few records because the plastic ones were bad out of the package. I once had to return a defective record multiple times, by the fourth time it still was defective and I refused to buy any more.

I have a National Semiconductor application manual on audio circuits that describe the operation of the needle on a record. I can't believe how primitive and vulnerable to damage that technology is.

Never have and never will be a customer of records again. When CDs came along, I embraced them. All my original CDs back to 1985 still work. The few records I owned got lost in my divorce and I do not miss them.

Frankly, all playback media has their thorns. I see no compelling reason to go back to vinyl records. CDs sound good enough to me, and I am into pro audio (not audiophile, there is a difference).

Comment: Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... (Score 4, Informative) 268

Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please?

Largely because of the first-sale doctrine, which codifies property rights sanity: if you sell me something, it is now mine, not yours. I can do whatever I want with it. Use my spatula as a screwdriver? Use a thermos bottle for a hammer? Watch scenes in a movie out of order? It's none of your business. I bought it. It is now my property, and I'm free to do with it as I please.

(Averting pedantry: of course that doesn't involve violating copyright. Straw men will be ignored.)

Comment: Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days (Score 1) 528

by Just Some Guy (#48534421) Attached to: The Sony Pictures Hack Was Even Worse Than Everyone Thought

Hell yeah, I'll admit that I am King of the Geeks. Talk nerdy to me.

OK, OK. I'll double-check with a calculator that's not "bc" before publishing. I've done enough physics work, though, to trust that 1) calculations showing explicit conversions are almost always correct, and 2) calculations that don't almost never are.

Comment: Re:100 TB @ 100 MBit/s == 12.5 days (Score 1) 528

by Just Some Guy (#48532019) Attached to: The Sony Pictures Hack Was Even Worse Than Everyone Thought

For nontrivial math, I don't always trust Google's interpretation of the question to be the same as mine. That page is a little short on details of what it's actually doing. On the other hand, WolframAlpha is really good about showing its work. I just always forget that it's there.

In either case, yeah, I like doing it the hard way. Or as I call it, "learning" or "practicing".

Comment: Re:Why program in Python (Score 4, Insightful) 277

by Just Some Guy (#48518099) Attached to: Which Programming Language Pays the Best? Probably Python

They think it's great because, in a tragic case of hilarity, jumping into code with minimal design is what python is great at.

We think it's great because, among other things, it has first-class functions and a very high code:boilerplate ratio. This lets us write very concise, readable, and maintainable code.

If you're a diligent programmer in python/php/javascript/etc then, in each function you write, you're going to double-check that the type passed in is correct, anyway.

Eww, no. I've never seen good Python code that asserts types because it's not the idiom for you to care. For instance, suppose you write a function like:

def get_contents_of(obj): return obj.read()

In this case, obj might be a file, or a web request, or a string (via the StringIO interface). Who knows? Who cares? As long as obj.read returns something, it works. BTW, this is supremely nice for unit testing when you don't really want to hit an SQL server 1,000 times in a tight loop.

Now, you could write something like assert isinstance(obj, file) to guarantee that you're only dealing with file objects. Of course, that lays waste to the whole concept of duck typing and people will laugh at you for doing it. So dropping that bad idea, you could write assert hasattr(obj, 'read') to ensure that the object has the needed methods. But why? Python gives you that check for free when you try to call the method. Let it do the heavy lifting and concentrate on the parts of the problem you actually care about.

Exceptions are one of the worst things to have become common - an "error" is almost always only caught outside the scope that it occurred in, hence the stack has already been unwound and thus there is no sane way to fix the error and retry the operation that caused the exception.

Yeah, that would be terrible. You almost never use them in Python like that, partially because Python tends to have a vastly shallower call stack than, say, Java (largely because you don't need 10 layers of abstraction between bits of code thanks to the duck typing we just talked about).

I think it boils down to you not knowing idiomatic Python. That's OK. I'm ignorant about lots of things, too. But I think you'd find that you enjoy it more if you stop trying to write C or Java in Python, because that almost never works out well.

Comment: Re:Why program in Python (Score 1) 277

by Just Some Guy (#48517037) Attached to: Which Programming Language Pays the Best? Probably Python

I agree, but remember that Python is interpreted in exactly the same way that Java is: both compile high level code to bytecode and run it on virtual machines. PyPy selectively uses LLVM to compile that bytecode into assembler for some enormous performance boosts, much as the Java JIT compiler does.

You might have mail.

Working...