Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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:Jewish Talmud (Score 3, Informative) 163

by Sun (#49236209) Attached to: Why Israel Could Be the Next Cybersecurity World Power

What genocide? Less Palestinian were killed by Israel (including combatants) since the conflict started 100 years ago than Syrians over the past two years.

The Palestinians in both Gaza and the west back, individually, experience a positive natural growth.

If Israel is trying to commit genocide, it is criminally ineffective.


Comment: Re:Bamba (Score 2) 243

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: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: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.


Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. -- R. A. Heinlein