Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Bamba (Score 2) 239

by Sun (#49125253) Attached to: Study: Peanut Consumption In Infancy Helps Prevent Peanut Allergy

Not only does it affect the peanut allergies in Israel (less than 1%), this snack was, in fact, the tirgger that started this particular research.

The story according to the local papers is that the researcher was in a conference in Israel, and, as usual, asked who here has a child that is allergic to peanuts. Unusually, however, hardly anyone raised their hands. That triggered discovery of Bamba.

In fact, during the research, Bamba is what they fed the non-control group children.


Comment: Not used in concentration camps (Score 2) 224

by Sun (#49117867) Attached to: 100 Years of Chemical Weapons

Excuse my nit picking, but the Nazis hardly used gas chambers in concentration camps. Mostly, they built special camps dedicated for murdering (mostly Jews, but it depends on the camp), and gas chambers was mostly used in those. These are, generally, refered to as "Extermination camps".

There were gas chambers in some of the concentration camps as well, but their use there was relatively marginal. Most people who died in concentration camps died from the cold, starvation and diseases, as well as direct murders (i.e. - getting shot).


Comment: Re: Nothing is possible. (Score 2) 249

by Sun (#49072671) Attached to: Game Theory Calls Cooperation Into Question

What game theory has to say about that is to point out that these systems only work so long as the number of participants is small enough. Once the number of participants gets too large, it is impossible to effectively punish the leachers, and the entire system falls apart.

I guess we need to add to GP's original question the criteria of "works on a large scale"


Comment: Re:You sunk my battleship (Score 1) 439

by QQBoss (#49058007) Attached to: Will Submarines Soon Become As Obsolete As the Battleship?

Depends on when you are talking about. Pre-2K, with the aid of an FO (Forward Observer), the shells could get fairly accurate by the 6th or 7th shell, 10th if the seas are high. Given the size of shells involved, though, that means you probably leveled an area the size of a small shopping center to hit the outhouse that had been your target.

Today, totally different story. With laser guidance from an FO, tiny little winglets will dance enough that as long as your target is within a cone of the shells target it will be hit within 1 meter. No FO? GPS guided shells will hit typically within 3 meters of whatever dot you put on your map. And if you can get optical terminating shells, they don't have the ability to just hit a window, but a particular pane of a window. Look up for yourself what Jane's has to say about cruise missile accuracy for projects like JASSM (because I don't recall what I am at liberty to disclose and too lazy to look it up from a beach in Thailand). Artillery shells can be built that have every bit of accuracy, just less distance and less cost per shell (until you include the cost of the ship, the crew, the support crew, etc...). This is done for land-based artillery guns and tank shells, as well. If you watch cable TV, I am sure you can find one of those "10 Best Whatevers" that will wrap shiny graphics and add in a few reasonably knowledgeable experts around Jane's information.

Comment: Re:It's a vast field.... (Score 1) 809

by Sun (#49054475) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Portion of Developers Are Bad At What They Do?

When I interview, I start by asking the applicant about their general background. What projects they have worked on.

I then try to pick something from that specific knowledge domain and ask about that. I typically ask them to describe, in detail, a project they have been involved in, or ask a question about it.

My personal experience: most know nothing about the specific domain in which they have participated.

Some of the answers I've received were embarresing. People volunteering knowledge in C++ STL and BOOST, working with smart pointers, who have no idea how shared_ptr works or what its drawbacks are. People saying they used multiple inheritence and virtual inheritence (I would never bring it up on my own as I know many people consider it a niche) who don't understand how virtual inheritence actually work. People who built communication platforms for VOIP who cannot answer why/whether/when UDP is better than TCP.

So, no, programmers suck even when you ask them about their own knowledge domain. I usually end up recommending someone without experience but with the right spark in their eyes, figuring my time is better spent growing a bright newbie than fighting with bad habits by a someone with good-for-nothing "experience".



Comment: Re:Science... Yah! (Score 1) 958

by Sun (#49053795) Attached to: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet and Fitness

Siddesu called it "the easiest way to lose weight".

If it's so easy, how come 95% fail it?

I have a regime that would allow you to live to 100, but it is so difficult to keep that it's not possible for you to stick to it. Is it your fault, or the regime's? Of course it is the regime's.

The human endurance is part of the equation. Ignoring it is precisely the failure of science this article complains about.


Comment: Re:Not automatic (Score 1) 60

by QQBoss (#49006289) Attached to: How a Hardware Designer Was Saved By His Own Creation

Demonlapin is correct: if you are doing proper chest compressions, there is a high likelihood you will crack the ribs of most adults over 40 (almost guaranteed if a woman over 60), and a reasonable likelihood of doing it to younger adults.

But, if you got out of the training that you should only do CPR if the AED doesn't work, you misheard the instructor. You shouldn't attempt to use an AED until after the first round of CPR has been performed (though not taught by the ARC at this point to lay rescuers, some schools of thought suggest that no initial rescue breaths are required for the first round if an AED is known to be available or professionals will be on the scene in less than 4 minutes from witnessed collapse). The AED should not be used until at least one round of chest compressions has been attempted. There are multiple reasons for this, which I won't go into. That you need to continue CPR if it can't shock the patient, or if the patient doesn't respond to the first shock, is, of course important. And that you should STOP doing CPR if the person does respond, hopefully that is a given, 'cause it does hurt when done properly!

Comment: Re:Not automatic (Score 5, Informative) 60

by QQBoss (#49004205) Attached to: How a Hardware Designer Was Saved By His Own Creation

Trained personnel? If they were capable of reading the instructions that were in the case, or listening to the directions spoken by the machine, that covers about 95% of what training is really required for a normal adult.

I am a certified First Aid/CPR/AED instructor for the American Red Cross. The level of training required to use an AED if you are calm, cool, and collected (and no cross-chest nipple piercings are involved) is less than is necessary to assemble a table from Ikea. That said, when you need to use one, calm, cool, and collected are frequently out the window, which is why training is recommended. Almost anything you can do wrong, the machine will let you know that something is wrong so you can correct it. Many kits even come with a razor to deal with the overly hirsute. Oh, and I was involved with building an internal pacemaker capable of phoning home to the doctor (though you had to hold the phone up to your chest, it couldn't reach out and grab it) back when they still required DSPs.

The AEDs automatically analyze heart rhythms (or lack thereof) and notify the operator to push a button if a shock is required. They will provide a shock for two different rhythms- V-fib (Ventricular Fibrillation) and V-Tach (Ventricular Tachychardia). They will not shock for asystole (no electrical heart signals detected at all, and must be avoided so you don't try using an AED to jump start your car or do some tiny welding) and PEA (pulseless electrical activity- the wiring is working, but the engine is dead).

Long story longer: Heart Attacks are NONE of these cases. AEDs WILL NOT PRODUCE A SHOCK for a heart attack, which is simply the blockage of blood to the heart, usually caused by a clot breaking loose. Heart attacks can result in cardiac arrest, which does result in one of the four cases above, but an AED will do nothing for a simple heart attack. TFA correctly describes that he had a cardiac arrest (sudden dropping to the ground), but incorrectly says he flat-lined (asystole, AED wouldn't have helped in that case) and that he had a heart attack (if he only had a heart attack, he could have walked off the court and hopefully gotten a quick ride to a hospital).

Any more info needed? I strongly encourage you and everyone to take a First Aid/CPR/AED class from whatever qualified source is available (Red Cross, Heart Association, etc). The chance that you will ever need to perform CPR is pretty low, but I have had to deal with a choking in a restaurant, a compound fracture at a swimming pool, a petite mal siezure on a subway, and other situations that are far more likely.

Comment: Re:Science... Yah! (Score 1) 958

by Sun (#48977881) Attached to: Science's Biggest Failure: Everything About Diet and Fitness

You keep trying to seperate the habits (human behavior) from the results.

Of course 95% revert to their old habits. Why is that a reason to discard them from your working set? If you have a regime that would save lives if it people would stick to it, but 95% fail to do so, why not see it as part of the problem?

Scott Adams talks about it. Fats are bad, but if you eat certain fats you are less likely to eat other stuff, which, as an aggregate, is even worse. This means that fats are actually not that bad.

Good science needs to factor the human aspect of things into the equation. Simply ignoring it just guarantees failure.


Comment: Re:Perl, my favorite language is rated higher... (Score 1) 386

by Sun (#48906761) Attached to: Is D an Underrated Programming Language?

Forgot to add:
The second point above might seem petty. After all, that's why D distinguishes between structs and classes, right?

Then please consider the following:
void func(lazy bool e);

void otherfunc()
SomeStruct s;


Since func receives a delegate, s is allocated on the heap (despite this not being immediately obvious to people not versed in D). As a result, s's destructor is not going to get called. Ever.


Comment: Re:Perl, my favorite language is rated higher... (Score 1) 386

by Sun (#48906707) Attached to: Is D an Underrated Programming Language?

Due to compiler bug, the following:

SomeStruct[10] s;
// Do stuff with s


Up until recently, s's destructors would not be called.

In the language definition proper:
auto s = new SomeStruct;

The destructor is never going to be called, even when s's memory is reaped by the GC.


Comment: Re:Perl, my favorite language is rated higher... (Score 4, Informative) 386

by Sun (#48863163) Attached to: Is D an Underrated Programming Language?

When doing low level system programming, there aren't that many viable choices out there. C, C++, possibly ObjectiveC (not familiar enough with it to tell for sure). That's about it. Of those, ObjectiveC is, pretty much, a one platform language. C++ is used quite extensively, but it is way too complex, resulting in most C++ programmers not knowing what the 1@#$@!# they are doing. Also, some C++ features are not suitable for some low level scenarios. For example, you probably wouldn't want your kernel code to throw exceptions, or do iostream formatting, in kernel code.

C, on the other hand, is a very simple language. It has no expensive features (though, to be honest, that mostly means that if you need something expensive, you'll need to do it yourself). As such, it is without competition for what it offers. The most it loses in market/mind share is through scenarios that used to require low level system programming but no longer do.

As for D....

D advertises itself as supporting this mode. My employer chose to develop a low-level high performance low latency system in D. I've been programming it for the past half year. I'm not overjoyed. I don't hate D, but my personal opinion is that we'de have been better off going with C++ (though, to be honest, I love C++ like few of my peers do).

I have two main gripes with it on that front. D has a horrid GC (though no GC provides the latency requirements we need), and though it claims you can do without it, you really can't. At least, not without giving up on much of the language features and almost all of the standard library. When comparing to C++'s ability to use custom allocators with the standard library, D's phobos seems deathly pale.

D also claims to support RAII semantics. I happilly went about implementing a reference counting pointer, only to find out that there are cases where you cannot use a struct with a destructor, and there are cases where you theoreticaly can use one, but in practice find that the compiler will not call your destructor. All in all, RAII is an untested unutilized option in D.


The devil finds work for idle circuits to do.