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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:What's with all the awkward systemd command nam (Score 1) 337

And java conventions of long method camel case names are regarded as silly in other languages, descriptive short methods are very possible

user = User.getUserByGuidBecauseImAJavaTwat(gid)
vs
user=User.(guid=gid)

And that makes sense to you? I don't recognize the language, but my guess it's one dot away from creating a user "user=User(guid=gid)". And if guid is a member variable, why are you assigning a value to it? Looks to me like you have some unnamed (...) function, does that imply "find"? Why? Go to your nearest CS school and 9 out of 10 pupils will figure out the purporse on the first function on the first try. You'd be lucky if 2 of 10 managed to guess the second. You're the kind of idiot which means people need 3-6 months of bootup time just to get into the head of the fucker who wrote the code.

I hate writing long variable and function names. I hate reading short variable and function names. And I've been back and forth, but here's my refined opinion: If you can't tell WTF the code is doing at a glance and want to add a micro-comment like "// find user", it's too obtuse. If you're trying to write a whole comment in the name like "getUserThatIsSomethingSomethingForWhateverBeforeThisAfterThat()", call it "getUser()" and write a damn comment. If it's ambigious, it's fine to start small and extend like if you used to have getUser() now you have getUserByGuid() and getUserByName().

As for the get/set prefix, I prefer the simpler user.guid() over user.getGuid() as it's really more a property than a function, you're just abstracting the implementation from the interface. Also you basically don't get any autocomplete before the 4th letter and it's not going to be consistent anyway, for true/false conditions you typically use "isSomething()". In this particularly case for a function I'd much rather call it "findUserByGuid()" though indicating it's a search on a set, not simply returning a value. Likewise if you have a class where you set numbers a and b and calculate the GCD, I'd much rather call the function calculateGcd() than getGcd() to point out that this function does the work. It gets a little ambiguous at times with "returnAddress()" the property vs "returnShipment()" the function where I sometimes reconsider that "getReturnAddress()" would be clearer but in 99% of the cases it's fine.

Comment Re:Goodbye Redhat, keep making the same mistake.. (Score 1) 152

So Ubuntu got volume, are they making any money? Nobody can tell, since they're a black box private company but Red Hat got 7300 employees, $1.5 billion in revenue and turned a $178 million profit last year so they're making money. That's why Red Hat dropped RHL, it was a money sink with no end and no signs of improvement. Who cares if Ubuntu got 100000 installations making $0? I'd probably use Ubuntu over CentOS for an unsupported server too, but if I wanted support I'd probably go Red Hat. Without knowing how many of the Ubuntu servers have a support contract it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Unless you think profit is decided by popular vote.

Comment Re:Hard to believe (Score 3, Interesting) 160

H.264 and JPEG are supposed to output random-looking bytes, by definitions. If you can compress those, something is very wrong.

Well, it seems to be applied per codec not a general compression algorithm like zip. And they probably say mobile-encoded for a reason, simple encoders have to work on low power and in real time, random JPGs from the Internet is probably the same. From what I can gather the algorithm basically take a global scan of the whole media and applies an optimized variable-length transformation making commonly used values shorter at the expense of making less commonly used values longer. Nothing you couldn't do with a proper two-pass encoding in the codec itself, the neat trick is doing it to someone else's already compressed media afterwards in a bit-reversible way. Very nice when you're a third party host, assuming the increase in CPU time is worth it but not so useful for everyone else.

Comment Re:Does flipping one electron now flip the other? (Score 1) 200

Because you don't get to 'flip' anything without breaking entanglement. You can just measure one electron and be sure that the same measurement will give you the same result in entangled one. It is like having two random number generators with the same seed - they always give the same (random) answer, but it does not allow you to transmit anything.

That's the "local hidden variables" theory, in which both particles are set with some quantum state at entanglement and don't interact later but which we know is false. If we angle the detectors, collapsing the quantum state at one end will cause correlation at the other end that can't be explained by hidden variables. The funny thing is though is that in order to measure the correlation you need both sets of measurements, which you have to transfer from one to the other at classical speeds so you don't get FTL communication. But the change happens FTL, even though you can't determine it until later. Every time you think you understand QM, it just gets weirder.

Comment Re:Psychology more scientific than cancer studies? (Score 1) 245

It's hard to believe psychology studies are more reproducible than cancer studies (11% reproducible): http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

It seems you don't understand what it is you linked to or you're trolling, the key here is preclinical. That is, there's an 11% chance we can reproduce lab results on actual people in clinical trials, so if you're in the first round of an experimental drug 9 out of 10 times it won't work. That sucks, but our understanding of the body and cancer isn't better so we have no choice but to experiment in practice. It says nothing about how reproducible the clinical results are, but before it's through all the rounds and approved for general use I would think we know with 99%+ certainty they will work. Until then, well that's why we call them experimental.

Comment Re:Do we really want Google... (Score 1) 163

Do we really want Google or Mozilla, or any other browser determining what content we can see or not see in a browser? I understand the security problems with Flash and I am not a fan of Flash, but everybody gets upset if an ISP blocks content, so why is it okay for a browser to do so? What next, will they block? This seems like an awfully big slippery slope and people are just accepting it.

Not really the same situation, I think a browser is perfectly entitled to say what third party plug-in/add-on/extension APIs it will allow, how they'll run and so on. Just like Firefox just decided to change their extension API, now whether it's a good idea is a different story but they're certainly entitled to do so. Would you be opposed to IE dropping support for ActiveX plug-ins too? I'm here assuming that there's some technical difference in flash between ads and video players, not that Google is actually sitting there saying that's an ad and that is not.

Comment Re:Time investment (Score 4, Insightful) 179

Curious: what prompted Max Rossett to spend hours solving programming puzzles before being even given the opportunity to submit contact information for a job consideration?

This may be news to you, but many people will take on a challenge just because it's a challenge like climbing a mountain only to climb back down. Particularly if you think it would impress someone you'd like to impress. And unless you think Google has an odd way of providing entertainment, it should be pretty obvious they want to find someone who can solve those puzzles. If a company is looking for your competence, well then add 2+2 (no, that won't qualify you for a position at Google) about what might come next. And if not a job offer, then probably some kind of PR stunt price. Whatever it is, would it be rational to think at the end of it all they're going to say "Hope you enjoyed the challenge, have a nice day!" and nothing more?

Comment Re:no fiji under $500? (Score 1) 59

what does binning for low power usage mean, exactly?

Some chips perform well with low drive current, think about it like being able to read reasonably well in poor lighting.

and that translates somehow into "luxury product"

If lower power usage or being smaller/lighter/quieter is more important than raw performance, it might be. All depends on what you value.

Anyway, the really big question is the headline which you didn't mention anymore, not what this card is but what it isn't. I expected the Nano to be half the Fury at half the price competing in the $2-300 market, instead it looks like the R300 series is here to stay a while - on the shelves, I think.nVidia must be laughing so hard now, realizing there's nothing new to compete in the GTX960/970 territory for a while.

Comment Re:Well, I read *that* headline wrong (Score 2) 59

Bringing this back on topic: Disappointed with new tech? Welcome to the club. Hardware has become so stagnant in the last 5 years. 28nm. *yawn*. Yet-another-Megaherz or "core". /sarcasm Yay. (...) When is the next (tech) revolution going to happen?

Actually I feel we've had several since the PC revolution. There was the network revolution with the Internet. The mobile revolution that lets you use it anywhere, any time. And with fiber rolling out I'd say we're in the middle of a bandwidth revolution. Even if you extrapolate like crazy going from 8GB to 16GB RAM isn't going to feel like going from 8MB to 16MB. The changes were huge because there was so much you couldn't do with 8MB, there's not so much you can't do with 8GB. Welcome back to the real world, where cars and planes don't go twice as fast with double the capacity and mileage three years later. Has it actually bugged you that you don't have terahertz processors or terabytes of RAM or petabytes of storage lately? I can't really say that I have, I often wish shit would work better but it's not because they lack hardware resources. There was a time when the really hardware wasn't capable even if you wrote optimized assembler, today it's 99.99% the software that's not capable.

Comment Re:Glad they didn't read the books (Score 2) 194

The TV show might in some ways be considered censored for good taste!

Perhaps in terms of content, but not in terms of being explicit and graphic. Whenever others have showed violence or sexual assault by or on young people usually it's far more implied or indirectly shown. They show the burned carcass that's supposed to be Bran and Rickon, Geoffrey very painfully dying of poison, Arya cutting a man's throat, Sansa getting raped, princess Shireen burned at the stake, Olly stabbing John Snow and the list just goes on. I almost expected them to film Meryn Trant having his way with the young girl in the brothel, but I guess even they decided that would be over the top. Yes, the books are cruel but they could have shown it far more subtly if they wanted to. I'm sure they're aware of all the headlines they get though and being so mainstream and established they can push it without getting much social stigma attached. At least going by their ratings they're still in the zone where most people want to tune in to whatever fucked up thing happens next rather than turn away in disgust. More people than you think have some morbid curiosity.

Comment Re:The cars can detect gestures. (Score 3, Interesting) 235

Automate the cop. The car can drive by itself, but traffic control at the intersection needs a human?

I don't know any place you'd put a cop instead of a traffic light, but there are quite a few scenarios where a cop needs to ad hoc direct traffic like near the scene of an accident so emergency services get through. No matter what you do you won't get away from it entirely.

Comment Legal? (Score 2) 367

Not going to happen because nobody wants to front a law to protect cheaters, for once the pretense of moral righteousness will work in the right favor. The real damage is of course to those that were cheated on, not because of the breach but because they married cheating bastards. If you want to sleep around I got no problem with that, just don't do it behind your spouse's back.

Comment Re:Agree with content, not the name (Score 1) 234

Well I think we can all agree that blindly accepting what other people tell you as fact shows absolutely zero critical thinking. Questioning it, being able to understand explanations and making logical arguments on their own is a good step. Sure, the next step is being able to detect questionable premises, faulty logic, spurious reasoning and other fallacies but that's a pretty tall order for a six year old. Basically, if you don't know how to do it right you're not going to spot anyone doing it wrong, so I'd say he's on the very right track. Sounds like he's already passed certain adults...

Comment Re:This is how it will go (Score 1) 253

Why not have an option in the middle somewhere. 1 Gbps is way more than I need, but 5 Mbps is on the cusp of being too slow for my tastes. Why not have a $30-$40 a month option for 100 Mbps?

Probably because they're not going to install 100 Mbit ports or send out 100 Mbit cable modems, the fiber line and all the associated overhead with maintenance and repair, billing and support is the same and most people will just finish their downloads faster so their cost structure is almost flat, except for a few massive bandwidth hogs. I would strongly suggest that it's the other way around, those who offer many tiers use it to cripple capacity far beyond reason on the lowest levels to make the higher tiers seem more reasonable, like 30 Mbit / $40, 100 Mbit / $60, 300 Mbit / $80, 1000 Mbit / $100. Would that be better?

Don't forget the $300 + $25/year (wasn't that free?) is subsidized to get a foot in the door, it almost certainly doesn't reflect the actual cost. It's more like the companies throwing credit cards around hoping you'll start using them. Here they're just hoping that eventually people will want to watch high quality Netflix and YouTube becoming $70/month "real" customers. It's not really the bandwidth that costs, even though that's what people base their expectation of price on.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...