Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:I have counted no less than 3 anti clinton repo (Score 1) 535

>> "It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,

I may be in the minority here, but I think this is perfectly acceptable and intuitive. I'm sorry we WANT to be able to monitor communication channels of officials. At the top executive branch level, that's impractical. If she was never issued an address, that's largely irrelevant to the nature of the agenda. The Law often conflicts with reality, so this doesn't surprise or alarm me. The statement about nuclear winter is laughably partisan.

Comment: Re:Wrong, IMHO (Score 1) 96

by Jack9 (#48949325) Attached to: ESA: No Conclusive Evidence of Big Bang Gravitational Waves

> because you're using terms like "pounded in everyone's head"

The BB theory is the only one that is well-known, because it's the only one that is mentioned in modern (and not so modern) textbooks, when making any cursory reference to a number of phenomena.
That doesn't make him a crank, it makes him savvy to the current state of education (largely, across the world). The crank part comes from promoting another theory as the only alternative.

Comment: Re:No way! (Score 2, Insightful) 514

by Jack9 (#48880337) Attached to: Senator Who Calls STEM Shortage a Hoax Appointed To Head Immigration

> Common sense is wrong more than it's right.

This is inaccurate.

> It's only good for making guesses about things you don't understand, and is worthless for evaluating things you understand.

You are intentionally perverting the meaning. Conscious understanding is less used than common sense. You survive because of common sense, not despite it.

Comment: Re:One has to wonder (Score 1) 253

by Jack9 (#48877309) Attached to: IRS Warns of Downtime Risk As Congress Makes Cuts

> Fewer people working means fewer people paying income tax
> Fewer people working does mean fewer people filing taxes.
> Level of fraud is immaterial to that point.

Fewer people filing does not equal less work. They still have to calculate and decide to try to collect from non-filers and when to schedule that based on a predictive model paired with an existing workload. Which is easier, figuring out if your W2s match up with employers who have turned in theirs, or figuring out what you didn't claim (if there was something you omitted)? You really think the IRS doesn't care if you didn't make any money AT all for a year? You are required to file or the IRS takes additional action. Welcome to America. People who do not have legitimate incomes also tend to rise, which then lends to more fraud and more work to understand who misused who's social security numbers (sometimes random, sometimes stolen as mine has been) or who work for whom and what the record should reflect to produce the proper accountability for you as an individual. This includes fines, of course. I have seen it take about 5-7 years to catch up. Talk to a tax preparer or something before you see a fine for a few thousand dollars when you do get an income. Sometimes they are efficient enough to wait till you have money to try to do a takeback.

Comment: Re: tfa says carry-on, one-way (Score 1) 349

by Jack9 (#48696431) Attached to: United and Orbitz Sue 22-Year-Old Programmer For Compiling Public Info

> you need two sets of one way tickets: JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK->somewhere else

You missed the opportunity where you can only save on half the trip and pay normally for the other half.

The idea is that even JFK->Phoenix->elsewhere and Phoenix->JFK , you still save money.

Comment: My review (Score 5, Interesting) 148

by Jack9 (#48675955) Attached to: Crowds (and Pirates) Flock To 'The Interview'

So there's a lot more gore and less funny than you would hope. Most of the movie is pretty lame after the Eminem interview, where you're still trying to figure out the movie's "style" and probably have a bit of hope left in you. Mostly it's a mish-mash of vignettes strung together to try to tell a boring story. Reminds me a lot of the terrible Dumb and Dumber To, but not as bad. I'm not sure that's a compliment. Go watch Top Five or the revamped TMNT, which are both better films.

Comment: Re:Land of the free (Score 1) 580

by Jack9 (#48628811) Attached to: Reaction To the Sony Hack Is 'Beyond the Realm of Stupid'

> Alternately, nobody I know had even heard of the movie before the hacks

In the US, it's was pretty hard to miss. From the media coverage over the last few months to the previews that have been in theaters since March. Not to mention that Seth Rogan has been talking about it since he started filming and James Franco since at least the last Planet of the Apes movie (where his character was barely included).

Comment: Re:Science does not work like that (Score 1) 329

by Jack9 (#48565761) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

> Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make.

That statement is incorrect. Such papers are specifically relevant. Scientific papers that do not take a position are not excluded as a factual record that serves as credible evidence. Irrelevancy would be based on insufficient rigor or correlation.

Comment: Re:counter-example? (Score 1) 161

by Jack9 (#48537053) Attached to: Why Apple, Google, and FB Have Their Own Programming Languages

> Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach

Please point to the study that demonstrates this. I would argue the opposite.
Runtime definition of types (modifications to a prototype has the same effect) has never been shown to be more productive than static typing, so I have to question assertions that it's obviously true.

> Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web

Java on a browser wouldn't be Java anymore than javascript is (they share some syntax!). Any modern scripting language is going to have to deal with a browser environment in similar ways, so we can just treat them the same. Why isn't a scripting language appropriate? Yes you would have to design a syntax for portability and make a browser vm, but so what? That's part of implementing a language in what we currently have as a browser client.

Shortest distance between two jokes = A straight line