Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:You nerds need to get over yourselves (Score 1) 208

by William Baric (#48913323) Attached to: Why Coding Is Not the New Literacy

I was there in the 80's. One of the first program I wrote with the school computers was a light cycle kind of game (actually, my inspiration was Snafu for the Intellivision). And you know what? Out of all student in my school, you'd had to hit ME with your stone, because I was the only one who made something more than tic-tac-toe.

As for anyone being able to program... I'll take running as an analogy : although almost everyone can run a 4 km race, it just takes interest and a bit of training, very few people could do an Ironman, even with years of training.

Comment: Re:Discussion is outdated (Score 5, Insightful) 488

by William Baric (#48899651) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is Pascal Underrated?

You're right and that's pretty much why computer programs are now so ridiculously buggy and require bug fix releases every two weeks. But then again, as long as customers still buy without complaining, why bother with quality? Worse, a lot of people now think a bug fix release every two weeks is a sign of quality!

Comment: Re:Safety? (Score 1) 161

by William Baric (#48789003) Attached to: Rust Programming Language Reaches 1.0 Alpha

For example, and maybe I'm wrong, the language doesn't force the programmer to declare variables outside of the code (in fact it looks like the language allows the declaration of a variable anywhere in the code) and it doesn't force the programmer to specify the type of a variable when declaring it (a quote from the documentation : "Variables can be type annotated when declared. However, in most cases, the compiler will be able to infer the type of the variable from the context, heavily reducing the annotation burden"). That kind of thing is an open door for sloppy programming.

What irks me the most is the "heavily reducing the annotation burden". For me, that should never be a goal with a language whose objective is safety.

Comment: Re:The human eye is proof God exists (Score 2) 187

by William Baric (#48668301) Attached to: Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate

Whether believing in a god is a sign of psychosis or not depends on why you believe.

If you believe because you want to be part of your cultural group or because you find it useful (either from a social point of view or a personal one), I agree it has nothing to do with psychosis. But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.

Comment: Re:I'm starting to think it's this simple... (Score 1) 63

by William Baric (#48665789) Attached to: De-escalating the Android Patent War

For me, one of the solution would be to ask for the detail of all the work and expenses which lead to the creation of an idea when submitting it for a patent. If the patent is just about an idea someone had while eating lunch at a restaurant and only required only a few days of work to put it on paper, sorry, but no patent.

Also, the value of the patent should be directly proportionate to the cost of developing the idea behind it. Patents should not be a lottery, they should only reward work.

Comment: Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score 1) 299

by William Baric (#48592847) Attached to: Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever"

Actually, I think Deckard being a replicant makes the movie a lot more interesting.

Basically, the movie start with a dark world and a typical "human:good / machines:bad" point of view. Then, we realize it's more complicated than that and our minds begins to open up. When at the end of the movie we realize that Deckard may also be a replicant, it's the final step toward opening up our minds. It forces us to think back at the movie and view characters beyond stereotypes. It makes the plot more intricate. More importantly, it leaves us with a strong feeling that there's more than meet the eyes.

Of course, I understand not everyone like intricate plots, I understand not everyone like to stir up their preconceived ideas, I understand some people prefer simple pop corn movies, but that's certainly not my case!

Anyway, beyond my personal taste with movies, I believe you are irrational. It is Ridley Scott's movie. No he did not write the script, but a script is just a tool used by the director. Once the script is written, the writer is out of the loop. The end result is at the mercy of the director who can do whatever he wants with the script. There are plenty examples of writers who were pissed because of directors creating a completely different movies than what they envisioned with their scripts.

You said it is widely believed Scott made that comment to stir up controversy? No it's not. Not only it is not "widely believed", but it certainly was not to stir up controversy, it was on the contrary to end discussions among fans and clear up things.

Firstly, let's be honest, it's not a "controversy" at all. I mean if Scott would have said that Deckard was human, like most people I wouldn't care much. I do think the story has more depth with Deckard being a replicant, but it's not like it will change my life or anything. I like to think about ambiguous ideas, it's a fun game, but when the author decide to clear up things, I believe it's completely ridiculous to contradict him.

Secondly, I remember an interview with Ford stating he had an argument with Scott saying it would be better for Deckard to be human so spectators could identify themselves with the character. From what I gathered, Scott wasn't sure about Deckard when shooting, he tried to leave his options open, it's only when making the cut he decided it would be better to make Deckard a replicant. So the idea that it was just to "stir up controversy" is simply ridiculous.

Anyway, my question was not about your "arguments" nor the movie. Deckard is a replicant, we now know it, end of story. My question is about you. I'm simply curious as to why it is so important for you for Deckard to be human. Why you are willing to even deny what the author of the movie is saying. Even if you prefer more stereotypical stories and so don't like the implication of Deckard being a replicant, it's just a movie! So why the passion? I just don't get it!

"Plastic gun. Ingenious. More coffee, please." -- The Phantom comics