Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:What is the added value over Python? (Score 5, Informative) 166

by Peaquod (#45805787) Attached to: GNU Octave Gets a GUI
The main advantage is that you can run pre-existing MATLAB code, often without any modification whatsoever. When composing new code, I certainly prefer python/scipy. Also, many engineers and scientists know MATLAB because it is pervasive in industry, but do not have experience with Python.

Comment: Re:That's an antipattern (Score 1) 575

And getting back to JavaScript, let's consider your own examples. A for-loop isn't the same concept in JavaScript as in C and C++ (until recently, at least, or unless you look from a very high level at what the C-style for loop is really doing). The object system in C++ works completely differently to the object system in JS. The features for manipulating functions in C and C++ are far less expressive than those in JS. Variables and scope work completely differently in JS, which in turn gives rise to some very important idioms that are unlike anything in C or C++. And of course the type system itself has a completely different flavour in JS from the C and C++ world, so your types and declarations do too. But apart from being wrong about every single example you gave, sure, JavaScript is just like C and C++. :-)

Christ Almighty, don't be such a douche if you want people to appreciate your point. You just mocked the OP, who posted a valid - and I suspect common - point of view, while providing nothing but a laundry list of vague, unverifiable comparisons. I don't doubt you know what you're talking about, but dispose of the mocking tone and add some meat to your argument

Comment: Re:simple math (Score 1) 973

by Peaquod (#32795712) Attached to: A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars
folks who are able to generate original artistic material are much more rare than those who are able to perform it, who are in turn much more rare than those who are able to record/edit/package it. the value of a product really shouldn't be posed in terms of the number of people required to produce it. ostensibly, since you are posting here, you're a relatively highly paid technical professional - do you expect to compensated just as the bag boy at the grocery?

Comment: Re:You're looking at it wrong. (Score 1) 750

by Peaquod (#31301976) Attached to: Should I Take Toyota's Software Update?

In that case, your only chance is the brake overriding the gas (a process which should have been true from the beginning anyway).

Or you can put the car into neutral... or cut the power entirely (yes, both these things work, even with push button ignition. I tested both on a country road shortly after the initial floor mat recall). In emergency situations, it's critical to keep your head together and recognize your options.

Comment: Re:It's not just cars and trucks ... (Score 1) 720

by Peaquod (#30083308) Attached to: Whistleblower Claims IEA Is Downplaying Peak Oil
I don't know how many "peak oilers" are also "PETA-loving Peak Oil blabbering tree huggers", but most of the reasonable arguments for peak oil I have read mention that exact point early on - that oil is used to produce almost everything we consume, including whatever needs to be manufactured to save our collective bacon. See, that point actually compounds the problem. So pointing it out actually *strengthens" their arguments. Sheesh,

Comment: Re:Reminds me of another project mentioned here (Score 1) 484

by Peaquod (#29239239) Attached to: Solar Roadways Get DoT Funding
that heat is a clear indication of the amount of solar energy available. allowing it to convert to heat before capturing it would tremendously lossy. I also can't imagine how one might capture the heat energy effectively while still allowing traffic to pass over the road, so I'm skeptical about "a lot less expensive"

Comment: But what about spam from "me"? (Score 3, Interesting) 176

by Peaquod (#28588673) Attached to: A Look At Google's Email Spam Prevention
At least 75% of my spam is addressed as though it was sent from *my* gmail account. Of course, it's easy to set up a filter to reject all such spam, but then I lose the ability to send reminder messages to myself. Seems like it would be extraordinarily simple for google to outright reject messages that claim to be sent from their servers that in fact were not. I sure wish they would!

Comment: Re:brilliant or dangerous? (Score 2, Informative) 1134

by Peaquod (#27220323) Attached to: Are Quirky Developers Brilliant Or Dangerous?

Find a guy with a little programming knowledge who can sit in the office next door and write docs for Jim.

Perfect answer. I've worked with several folks like Jim over the years, and consider myself to be in the same vein. Yes, we can and will write documentation if we have management that requires it. But we'd much rather be having fun solving problems, and wise management will make sure that is what we are doing most of the time. Right now I work for a very small research company - the entire tech staff is two engineers (not "software engineers" - computer vision & robotics) plus two programmers. Our code is messy and poorly commented with no documentation - we get away with this because it is research grade code, and because our team is so small. We (the engineers) understand it just fine. The poor programmers who must port it to other languages simply have to put the blinders on and copy the functionality. We could document the code to death, but that wouldn't be any substitute for the fundamental knowledge in physics, statistics and algorithms required to *really* understand the code. When and if we grow into a production environment where many people will have to support (and understand) the code, I trust our management will be wise enough to hire other folks to do the bulk of the documentation, with help as necessary from the engineers. Because there will always be more profitable things for us to be doing, which we actually enjoy.

Comment: Re:Moore NEVER mentioned computing power (Score 2, Insightful) 342

by Peaquod (#26648357) Attached to: Less Is Moore
Amen! The phrase "Moore's Law" irritates me to no end. I understand that it is the common vernacular, but it is almost always misused here on /. "Moore's Law" was simply an observation that has remained remarkably consistent over time. And it had nothing to do with cost or "computing power" - just that the number of transistors per unit area double roughly every 18 months. There is no "Law" to be followed or violated! Sheesh!

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.