Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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:The paper is BS... (Score 1) 247

by Verdatum (#49183179) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality
The refactoring techniques they used were from Fowler's book, Working Effectively with Legacy Code. But it seems like they didn't actually bother to read his book. They are good techniques, and it is an excellent book, I recommend it to anyone stuck working on old crummy codebases. But the book tries to stress that the specific techniques are not nearly as important as determining when it is appropriate to use which technique. It further stresses that the most important thing is to get as much of the codebase covered by well written unit tests as is reasonably achievable. But there was no mention of either of these concepts in this paper. The article made it sound like they just gave a bunch of undergrads the list of techniques and instructed them to apply them. Undergrads generally have zero experience working on legacy code. Most of them only work on assigned programming projects from scratch. The only time I worked with legacy code was tweaking the Linux Kernel for my OS class.

Comment: Re:About Fucking Time (Score 1) 435

by Verdatum (#48620511) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations
Cuban cigars are indeed good. And in the 60s, they were pretty solidly the best. However, the embargo lasted so long, and cigar interest has had big enough explosions in the past 20 years or so that the other countries, and indeed the Cuban manufacturers themselves have figured out how to make cigars that are every bit as good in nearby regions. It'll be great whenever they finally return to the US, but it won't quite be the massive cigar-renaissance in the US that some people expect.

Comment: Re:Congressman Amash’s letter sent to Collea (Score 2) 379

Thanks for providing this, AC. I don't know what Mr. Amash is talking about. Section 309 doesn't grant any blessing of Executive Order 12333, or any other mechanism of collection. It just states that if any collection takes place without a court order, then it must be disposed of within 5 years with a few very-specific exceptions. The sky is not falling people. Do your research before you freak out based on alarmist stuff like this.

Comment: Cutting through the alarmist deceptive stuff. (Score 3, Insightful) 379

Here's the important part: "That type of collection is currently allowed under an executive order that dates back to former President Reagan, but the new stamp of approval from Congress was troubling, Amash said."

In other words, the only issue he has with this bill is that it acknowledges an Executive Order is in place. It doesn't even particularly bless it. Nothing is changing other than a slightly-less tacet approval of an order that has been around for decades. It's not a terribly long bill, check it out yourself

Comment: Wikipediocracy (Score 1) 274

by Verdatum (#48516845) Attached to: A Mismatch Between Wikimedia's Pledge Drive and Its Cash On Hand?
It seems like all of these articles trying to dig up dirt and spread controversy about Wikipedia come from It also seems like they are a very small group. All mentions of wikipediocracy in this comment section prior to this submission (under my default filter settings; forgive my laziness) are from two users, and one of them, the primary one, is the article submitter. I just have major trouble buying anything from a source whose entire mission is to criticize Wikipedia. That kinda just screams bias. This content is always coming out of wikipediocracy. I can't recall the last article posted to Slashdot critical of Wikipedia that didn't include a link from them. It feels like they are just trying to use the visibility of getting their submissions posted to Slashdot to build controversy. It isn't hard to write up a summary and get it accepted by Slashdot just by knowing to write a summary in the accepted style. People don't click the links often because it isn't very interesting, they just note "wow, people sure sound upset at Wikipedia" and don't notice that it's always this small group of people....

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928