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


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:role most affected? (Score 1) 135 135

While this is true in many cases, the angel investor of today has generally got priority on returns from any sale of a startup today. It's very different from the publicly traded dot com bust according to articles I've read on the subject. If "the bubble" pops this time, some investors will be hurt if they can't sell the startup. However, if the startup is sold for what was invested, the people left holding the bag will be the employees working for little more that stock options and a dream of a big exit. Those people will have worked months/years and will get no return. Their shares will be effectively worthless.

Join a startup when times are good expecting times to stay good seems like a good way to get burned. (buy high, sell low) Joining a startup accepting that there is inherent risk in what you are doing is, as always, a gamble. (penny stocks) Joining a mid to large size company with a legacy code base that has to be maintained by some old master in a particular language/framework/architecture seems the safest route to steady income, but you'll never become really wealthy. (Bonds) Catching the hype wave and riding it into newer, higher paid positions has great returns until your wave turns out to be a dud. (Stocks) In 2005 it was web apps, in 2010 it was mobile apps, in 2015 it looks like machine learning. If you bet on HTML5 apps in 2010*, you struggled. Many did.

*Flame away HTML5 people. HTML5 didn't make $40000 a day on flappy birds and iFarts. I know those are exceptions, but employers eat that stuff up. Salary studies that I saw reflected this.

Comment: Re:Year of the... (Score 3, Interesting) 192 192

outdated by November 2015

LOL, you didn't even read the specs did you? 6th gen intel processor. Not haswell. Not new 5th gen broadwell. 6th gen skylake. If anything, it's so cutting edge, I'd worry about it shipping in time for xmas given Intel's lousy track record with broadwell.

Also, 970m isn't going anywhere any time soon. It's going to be early/mid 2016 at the soonest before Pascal GPUs ship out of nvidia.

Also(!) Zotac tends to ship barebones systems in addition to full systems. Don't like the RAM/disk provided? Get a barebones and choose your own.

Comment: Re:Ummmm.... (Score 1) 319 319

There are counter points to just about everything you've said.
  1. 1. Really? You don't know how to do html/css without javascript? Your SEO must be shit, m8.
  2. 2. All those 'rich' libraries are great until they don't work on IE8 or Chrome 37.0.20341. I especially love when stuff that worked fine years ago is broken today because browser updates changed the internal perfomance characteristics of the javascript vm. Simply put, doing too much on the client puts you at the mercy of client configuration changes which you have no control over.
  3. 3. Libraries, that was your argument in #2 wasn't it? Compare libraries available to Java vs Javascript on the server side. Best tool for the job, right? Sounds like you found yourself a golden hammer.
  4. 4. Can you really? How do you replicate the declaritive html5 form validation on the server? And is it really a good idea sharing your validation code, bugs and all, with the client? Sounds like a major security problem to me.
  5. 5. Let's see how your sorting goes on a table with a million rows client side.. if you're batshit crazy enough to even try that. Most of what you mentioned should and generally does get written in SQL, not JS.
  6. 6. lol, now that's just bait

Performance... you're funny. Tell me about your performance when your server falls over with memory problems and you don't have anything like visualvm to figure out why. Don't get me wrong, Java sucks in its own special ways, but I'd never choose Javascript as my primary language.

Comment: Re:Predictions have been pretty good, actually (Score 1) 786 786

So, you've basically said that anything that relies on observations of nature is not a science.

What I'm saying is very simple. Science is the application of the scientific method. The scientific method is very well defined. Forming a hypothesis and then claiming your statistical model predicts what your hypothesis says is not an application of the scientific method. That misses several key steps.

Feel free to react with further hostility, logical fallacies, and sticking words in my mouth if you like.

Comment: Re:Predictions have been pretty good, actually (Score 1) 786 786

Comparing it to the data, from 1967 on... looks like the experimental result matches the prediction.

Nice, an experiment. So if you could just show me where your control group is. You know, the control group that had no increase in CO2 and no increase in warming? Because, if you don't have one, how do I know some other factor didn't cause the warming you observed?

That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.

That's a description of deniers. That's not the way climate science is done.

The reason we believe that the model is more or less accurate is that there are terabytes of data confirming it. The reason we don't believe that alternative models are accurate is that there aren't any.

This is exactly what I pointing out. You feed data into a statistical model and call it science. You haven't conducted an experiment with a control group. You have no scientific proof. You have nothing but a statistical correlation.

Comment: Re:Stop trying to win this politically (Score 1, Insightful) 786 786

Feed in past climate data and see if your climate model can predict the past or the present accurately.

While I agree with most of your post, what you describe here is not science. That approach turns science on its head. The scientific method begins with a reasoned hypothesis, followed by a prediction based on the hypothesis, and an experiment to prove or disprove this prediction. Climate "science" on the other hand does exactly what you describe here. It looks at past data and attempts to fit it to a hypothesis. That's not science at all. That's little more than a statistical model. These guys believe they have their answer and are trying to fit all observations to it.

The most non-science part of Climate "science" is the regular refrain that "There's a consensus, therefore, anthropogenic global warming is proven." If anyone so much as expresses doubt about this form of proof, that person is attacked. I believe this sums up my opinion of that succinctly.

Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.