Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Now you know what a boiled frog feels like. (Score 2) 102

by MrBigInThePants (#48845341) Attached to: Feds Operated Yet Another Secret Metadata Database Until 2013
You are wrong Mr. Coward. And very obviously so. You also have not provided any evidence for your rather outlandish claims. And another disclaimer: I HATE the right/left spectrum demarcation and only use it out of necessity of communication. I believe it is totally outdated and a inaccurate in modern politics.

Firstly I form my own opinions by observing ACTUAL BEHAVIOUR, not just parrot whatever libertarian propaganda I have been reading last such as you have been doing.

World wide right wing and center right governments have been ADVANCING the same - hence why you have Obama agreeing with Cameron - a right wing Tory FFS.
Here in my country the VERY right wing part in power is bending over forwards to allow the US to have new spying powers - even to the point of suffering greatly themselves politically. The same in Australia. This is repeated around the world.

To argue otherwise is just ignorant.

Worldwide it is the most LEFT parties that are the most vociferously opposed to the spying the RIGHT parties are introducing.

And just because you are so ignorant as to call the democrats "left wing" or to totally and completely ignorant of what your typical left wing party stands for does not make it any different.

And if you think the "libertarian" party (which are so obviously referring to) will be a breath of fresh air you are a bigger joke than I am implying above.

The Modern Libertarian == freedom for the wealthy and their total abnegation of any social responsibility towards everyone else(i.e the people they used to make said money).

And all the above is so obvious and transparent it should not even require explaining. But then this is main problem with world today - too much wilful ignorance.

Comment: Re: Now you know what a boiled frog feels like. (Score 1) 102

by MrBigInThePants (#48843179) Attached to: Feds Operated Yet Another Secret Metadata Database Until 2013
Dude. EVERY one of the major political forces in the US is a right wing force by WORLD standards. (i.e. not your RIDICULOUS and extremely myopic US standards)

Half the problem is how your people view politics, economics, justice and democracy in general. Which is why the endless comments like yours always annoy me so damned much. The ignorance of fundamentals is staggering.

It is not either or time. It is wipe the slate clean and start again time!

Any other option just will not work at this point - the US citizenry have let it go on too long and become too entrenched.

Anything else is now losing the this most recent of many articles shows quite clearly!

Comment: Re:Hypocrites, liars and communists. (Score 1) 441

by MrBigInThePants (#48825891) Attached to: Why We Have To Kiss Off Big Carbon Now
I just absolutely LOVE this anti-green rant. It embodies everything that needs to be embodied about this type of person.

You play the greenies? Heh.

I believe the blame is people like you: "Who are the ones that we kept in charge, Killers, thieves and Lawyers" as professed by the great Tow Waits.

God's away, God's away, God's away on bidness....bidness...!

PS: This post makes more sense than yours....

Comment: Re:islam (Score 1) 1350

by MrBigInThePants (#48777655) Attached to: Gunmen Kill 12, Wound 7 At French Magazine HQ
Then you are being very small minded.

Christianity was just the political vehicle for the message: Kill for me (subtext: and make me more powerful)
It displays an overall truth that is as relevant today as it ever was.

There have been many others:
- "Religeon"
- "Freedom"
- "Justice"
- "Communism"/"Socialism"
- "War" on Drugs
- "War" on Terror
- Cold "War" (i.e. "War" on non-capitalists)
- "Stability" of neighbouring nations
- War on people of colour (does not matter which colour - including white)
- etc...

Why so many "quotes". Because in each and every case the use of the above concepts has been a complete and utter hypocrisy-filled farce. They have to be because their publicly stated aims and actual aims are so far apart.

The much greater truth is that certainly sociopathic human beings love, nay need, to have other people debase themselves for their glorification and increase in power.

This is bad enough although not surprising, but the REALLY sad truth is that there are many, many sheep-like creatures (sheeple) out there all to willing to follow along in a cult like fashion:
- True believers
- Sycophants
- Other sociopaths playing the same game
- Authoritarian followers.
- The weak/desperate
- The ignorant/disgruntled

And of course the very, very stupid - a very very large category of people.

This is how it has always been. This is how it is. This is how it will always be until humanity learns accept, embrace and then rise above its true nature.


Comment: Re:Show me a computer chess program.... (Score 0, Redundant) 107

by MrBigInThePants (#48694109) Attached to: The New (Computer) Chess World Champion
These competitions explicitly prohibit the use of the above technique. This is because chess is already a 100% solved solution space. We already can make a player that will play the "perfect" game of chess - just that the above competition bans it. So now you have a whole bunch of computer programs attempting to optimally search said space in real-time without appearing to...its all rather ridiculous although still a challenge.

For that reason these competitions are not very interesting at all - just high publicity.

You may be more interested in the world of GO - which is still unsolved and recently had a very interesting article talking about a breakthrough. The solution space of GO is so large that the same "cheating" technique would never work in the foreseeable future.

Its even possible that the solutions and tools for such pattern recognition problems could be more broadly useful in other areas of AI. (unlike almost all of the chess stuff most of which appears to be dick measuring for publicity at this late stage)

Comment: Re:That's revolutionary (Score 1) 363

by MrBigInThePants (#48691659) Attached to: Trees vs. Atmospheric Carbon: A Fight That Makes Sense?
You are so right. My dream home is a medievil-inspired (i.e. log + stone feature wall + thatch-style roof) house. And it is not as expensive as you would think since you don't need all the insulation etc. (still more expensive though)

If you have never checked out the modern log home you really should google it. :)

Comment: Re:Dwarf Universe? (Score 1) 70

What exactly about the galaxy makes it a dwarf as opposed to a little-verse? Its galactic arms are too long for its body and its core is over sized?!

Why are not the PC brigade up in arms about this obviously inappropriate reference.

And since we is 7 million light years "mere". I mean we are not a universe, we are human. Its a long-assed way for us!

Comment: PHP = Powerfully Horrendous Programming (Score 5, Interesting) 194

by MrBigInThePants (#48677083) Attached to: MIT Unifies Web Development In Single, Speedy New Language
If it is then it is DOA. ;) Sorry all you php fans, but seriously?!

But seriously seriously: I don't believe that is the approach he is talking about. PHP is a very different beast.

Their choice of a functional programming language is an eyebrow raiser but I understand the reasons why and can even applaud the sentiment for high volume transactional websites. (speaking as an architect with experience of such in the CC industry) I do sort of lament the lack of any OO framework within this (my assumption from article) but perhaps it is not needed as much since most data is from a relational DB. The incongruence between relational data and OO design has always caused problems anyway - obvious in the complexity of frameworks like "hibernate" etc.
And for those that think that OO and functional languages cannot mix need to do a course on multi-paradigm programming like I did. ;)

The CONCEPT has real potential and it will be interesting if and how these (assumedly MIT-smart) researchers deal with the main problem that any "do lots for you behind the scenes" (I am inventing a new architectural pattern here!) frameworks: Sacrificing flexibility of solution for ease of use.
This is where limits are introduced because frameworks are forced to make choices about implementations and those choices have consequences. Implementing an elegant and simple solution with a huge amount of flexibility, easy extension and power is one of those holy grails that I have yet to see ANY framework in existence reach to any degree - there are ALWAYS trade-offs.
Many of these frameworks start off with the claim of "really simple!!" but over time their lack of forethought and the punishing reality of REAL project development (as opposed to the dreams of researchers) causes the language to either be wholly inadequate or to mutate over time into an absolute nightmare.
e.g. Auto hot key STILL makes the claim on their website that they are so easy to use, despite what their language has turned into:
A very good example of this principle in action.

e.g. VB was very productive (for its time) when all you did was use the out of the box stuff the language was designed for. Go off road (which inevitably happens in real projects) and you could enter VB hell very very quickly. Fixing said problem was usually possible but at the cost of a HUGE increase in skill and knowledge which is beyond many of those who picked it for its easy of use.

So the questions I would be interested to find out are:
- How far can you get before the above happens?
- What percentage of typical advanced web app functionality is covered?
- How HARD is it to extend (I assume its possible) and what skills are required to do so?

There are of course thousands of others to answer before I would even consider using this in a real product!

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.