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


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:IT for bookies? (Score 2) 124

by Meddik (#35125612) Attached to: EA Simulation Correctly Picked Super Bowl Champs in September
A Lot of what Bookies do to cover their odds isn't directly related to the event itself, but more to balance out their risk on what people are betting on. For example, If they took a bet on Team A vs Team B, and Team A was obviously much stronger, most people would want to bet on A, with very few betting on B. Based on that, they will adjust the contest either by giving the game a spread (For example, You only win the bet if Team A wins by at least 10 points) or giving higher odds to one team. (For example, Bet $1 and get back $5 if team B wins) These will both fluctuate before a game, as more people place their bets. The Bookie's goal isn't to correctly predict the game, but to end up in a situation where their risk is minimized, with roughly the same amount of money at to be paid out regardless of which team wins.

Comment: MS is not copying Google's search results. (Score 1) 693

by Meddik (#35071040) Attached to: Bing Is Cheating, Copying Google Search Results
Lots of people are reading this as MS copying Google. What they are doing is learning from Google's USERS. Watching what results users find relevant, and bumping that up the list of results makes perfect sense. I am assuming they are doing this will all search engines, not just google.

Comment: Re:First things first (Score 1) 312

by Meddik (#34743202) Attached to: How Do You Prove Software Testing Saves Money?
You are absolutely right there. Automated testing does have it's place... But that place is doublechecking a repetitive test case in solid, stable functionality that would be boring to run over and over again. Automated testing rarely finds new defects, but is great at making sure old defects don't pop pack up. Human eyes are best at exploratory testing, and finding new problems. As a QA Analyst, I'd say that about 75% of the defects I discover are things I was NOT specifically looking for... They are things that I come across incidentally, and say "Hmm... That's strange" and go off script to investigate.

If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments. -- Earl Wilson