Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Isn't this Apple's entire shtick ? (Score 1) 271

by Xest (#47501937) Attached to: Why My LG Optimus Cellphone Is Worse Than It's Supposed To Be

But that's exactly the point isn't it? The assumption that software magically "just works" when you move it on to shittier hardware is complete nonsense. That's never been the case, not even on the desktop.

When you buy cheap you're not just buying cheaper hardware, you're buying a more cheaply QA'd phone, you're buying a less tested phone, you're buying a phone that has had less investment in bug fixing. Your analogy of Intel's i series is completely off base as it's not simply the process version that changes - everything from the wireless chip, to the screen size, to the quality of memory, to the amount of storage space, to the graphics processor will also often change. All that can make stuff that works on high end devices just fine fail miserably on low end devices.

It's all part of the package - the idea that it's cheap but the software should be just as great is complete bollocks. Software has a cost too, and just as you pay for better hardware quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend you also pay for better software quality and assurance by upping the amount you spend.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 648

by Xest (#47500169) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country, an al Qaeda is a Sunni organisation.

The west didn't have occupying troops in Saudi because it was done with the support of the Saudi government to help protect Saudi Arabia from shia nations like Iran.

The person I was responding to said al Qaeda were initially freedom fighters, and that's what I disagree with because obviously that's false because their freedoms hadn't in any way been restricted by the people they were attacking.

There are many groups you can claim were potentially freedom fighters including the Taliban, but al Qaeda just isn't one of them because they were wholly the aggressor and that's what I take issue with - the suggestion otherwise that somehow al Qaeda only got aggressive because the US attacked them first. That's nonsense - they may well have started it for the reasons you describe, but that isn't freedom fighting as the GP suggested, that's still terrorism.

Comment: Re:I disagree (Score 1) 236

by Xest (#47500109) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

Most of the posts here talk about calculus and efficiency but it's only a small part of how math links into programming.

You don't need to know math to program, but math is what separates great programmers from the mediocre. Math has been essential for the formulation of new ideas. If all you're doing is creating run of the mill CRUD applications then you don't need math at all, if however you work in an R&D department solving hard problems then math is absolutely essential.

I have a degree in maths and a degree in computing, as someone who learnt to program long before I did either of my degrees, I frankly found my degree in math to contribute far far more to my capabilities than rigorous study of computer science did. Having a good math foundation is the difference between being able to listen to a problem a client wants solving and saying "No, we can't really solve that" which is what most developers would do in the face of a tough problem and recognising that the clients problem is an optimisation problem, a classification problem, or some other type of problem and knowing what sub-areas of maths apply to solving or approximating an acceptable solution.

So you can develop without math fine, but without math there'll be whole classes of problem that you have no idea how to solve and will just write off as not possible. You might argue that you could just find a library or framework, but without even being able to classify the problem you wont even know what you're looking for let alone know how to use it properly so even that's not going to work out for you.

Comment: Re:Let us keep our thoughts with our Kremlin frien (Score 1) 648

by Xest (#47499911) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Just when I thought Alexander Borodai couldn't stoop any lower in saying the ICAO can pick up the flight recorders whilst also stopping ICAO represenatives getting to him to pick them up the train carrying about 200 of the bodies now apparently can't get to Western Ukraine because the railway has magically been damaged today.

Worse, Borodai has also now said he will only hand over the bodies of the deceased directly to the relatives. Yes, that's right, you can't have your dead son back for burial unless you personally travel to Borodai's warzone to pick him up.

What an absolute pathetic excuse of a person Russia has sent to run things in Ukraine, classy company Putin must keep. I can't really tell if they think they're somehow making the situation better by so desperately preventing any evidence escaping their grasp or if they're just being malicious at this point. Either way they're certainly not making the situation better for themselves and they're basically screaming their own guilty in refusing to cooperate.

Meanwhile, as an aside, Denis Pushilin another Putin puppet and spokesman for the rebels decided to resign and flee to Moscow over the weekend. I can't tell if he's more or less stupid than Borodai for doing this, on one hand his actions scream that he has something to run from and that the rebels are guilty as hell and he doesn't want to be punished from it, but on the other at least he's not just digging deeper like Borodai and trying to achieve the medal of "Most horrible person on Earth" in the process.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 648

by Xest (#47499745) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Well the Janes article also suggests it can be set into an autonomous mode where it just fires at anything approaching it (presumably that doesn't identify explicitly as friendly - so both enemies and civilian aircraft).

It's possible there was no human pulling the rhetorical trigger at all and that they set it in autonomous mode and kept their distance fearing it might be hit by a HARM missile or something.

Though I doubt we'll ever know, I doubt the person who set it in autonomous mode, or who pulled the trigger is even still alive right now quite frankly.

Comment: Re:Are they forgetting that this is the UK? (Score 1) 43

by Xest (#47499249) Attached to: UK Government Faces Lawsuit Over Emergency Surveillance Bill

So how do you think the data retention law was slapped down in the first place as being an overreach then genius?

Of course some laws supersede others - the human rights act for example has resulted in many rulings that deem newer laws to be invalid.

Parliament can still held to account by the judiciary and it is ultimately the judiciary that determine what happens when one law conflicts with another - there's no automatic "newest wins" as you originally claimed.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 5, Informative) 648

by Xest (#47498941) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

Janes the defence intelligence organisation disagrees with you FWIW. They claim that IFF in the Buk systems simply asks if it's a friendly and if it doesn't reply with a friendly signature it assumes it's a foe.

I know you claim you've been trained in the system but I'd rather believe Janes given that their description makes much more sense. If what you said is true that surface to air missile systems can be disabled from firing at a target by simply claiming to be civilian in their IFF response then they'd be less than useless as every military jet would be flying around pretending to be civilian.

See here:

http://www.janes.com/article/4...

Quote in question:

"Although it has its own identification friend or foe system, this is only able to establish whether the target being tracked is a friendly aircraft. It is the electronic equivalent of a sentry calling out: "Who goes there?". If there is no reply, all you know is that it is not one of your own combat aircraft. It would not give you a warning that you were tracking an airliner."

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 648

by Xest (#47498857) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

"could be classified as freedom fighters since they were fighting against their aggressors"

Where? Al Qaeda car bombed the WTC some years earlier and the US military had drone footage of him in the late 90s.

I'm not by any measure a fan of the US, nor am I one to think the US isn't the cause of many of it's own problems, including many terrorist incidents, but Al Qaeda seem pretty clearly to be an aggressor. The worst the US did was support them against the soviets and then just stop returning their calls when the USSR fell, it's not like they were hunting them day in day out like they do nowadays.

Osama was even handed the US on a plate at one point but they weren't fussed enough to deal with all the crap surrounding it to take him, so to paint him and al Qaeda as freedom fighters and the US as aggressors in the US vs. al Qaeda conflict seems complete nonsense.

You can argue post-9/11 that the US became an aggressor against the Taliban depending on how much you believe the Taliban had to do with 9/11, but against al Qaeda? No, the first WTC bombing, the USS cole attack and so on and so forth - al Qaeda was clearly the aggressor in that particular case.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (9) Dammit, little-endian systems *are* more consistent!

Working...