Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The problem with older developers... (Score 1) 429

by Xrikcus (#49641535) Attached to: Why Companies Should Hire Older Developers

Often even up to VP level. Other companies treat management as an optional add on to a technical role up to some fairly high level in the organisation. It still depends a lot on what you want to do, though. Few of those Fellow/Director of Technology/whatever other tech track title roles at the high level end up really having a lot of coding. You're exchanging making decisions about people for making decisions about projects.

Comment: Re:nonsense (Score 1) 532

by Xrikcus (#49631285) Attached to: The Medical Bill Mystery

That is true, but maybe one reason for that is that only people the government doesn't care about, democratically speaking, suffer from it. The NHS in the UK affects almost all voters, even most middle class people use it for most things, and so there is more incentive to keep a reasonable standard of service. It also means the service for the very poor is integrated with the service for everyone else, so you don't end up in the same situation of a doctor restricting NHS patients in favour of private ones to anything like the same degree you see with medicaid.

Dental care is a bit of an exception, but in part that is because while dental bills get high they don't generally reach bankruptcy levels in the way hospital bills do. A lot of UK dentist have dropped support for NHS dental treatment for adults. Not for children, though, which is probably why the UK rates so well on dental health.

Comment: Re:nonsense (Score 1) 532

by Xrikcus (#49629749) Attached to: The Medical Bill Mystery

Have your French cousins experienced American healthcare? One of the big things British and French expats miss when living in the US is the healthcare.

If you are wealthy and have good private insurance, then American healthcare works well. British and French top up insurance and private care is comparable, though. If you are not rich, and had to rely on the government healthcare in Europe, then the American version is inferior.

Comment: Re:nonsense (Score 1) 532

by Xrikcus (#49629529) Attached to: The Medical Bill Mystery

Before even reaching single payer, there needs to be a legal requirement for a single charger! If you go to a particular doctor for treatment, ALL bills should come from that doctor or his facility. If they contract, that doesn't matter, that doctor is responsible for telling you how much you owe, being in-network with the insurance companies and so on. The current situation of going to an in-network doctor only to find he uses an anaesthetist or lab who is out of network and thus only partially covered is insane.

Comment: Re:stupidly weak (Score 2) 267

by Xrikcus (#49350049) Attached to: Generate Memorizable Passphrases That Even the NSA Can't Guess

Your first word is 7 digits your second is 3, so clearly one is stronger than the other. "nom" is not in the diceware set, which helps a little, but it isn't so uncommon to be in a search dictionary. The numbers are in the diceware set.

You're comparing 7700^3 against 7700^7. Your more secure password isn't any better than chickensandwichwafflesworkcraigcrossafrica, probably a lot less good because chicken, delicious and nom clearly correlate heavily and nomnomnom is almost one word really. 7700^7 is 1604852326685300000000000000 according to my calculator. If I assume 72 characters (52 letters, 10 numbers, 10 special characters) then I need a 15 character random password to beat it in terms of search space. Maybe this: }&X$0ueUo~ravx&.

Further, if you put numbers between your letters you are turning a search space of 7700 into 7710 or whatever. If you replace l with 1 and so on, you are surely turning 7700 into 7700*(number of replacement options and combinations thereof). So mathematically, I would think that replacing e with 3, a with @ would actually be a stronger encoding that what you suggest.

Comment: Re:Why do we need Auto? (Score 1) 193

by Xrikcus (#47712829) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone

You are indeed correct. Polymorphic lambdas as defined in C++ only apply template polymorphism to them. That's a subset of the possible forms of polymorphism, but I shouldn't really have used the term given that it has a definition in the standard now. Java lambdas (or C++ std::function wrapping of a lambda) is a different situation - those are only statically typed to the point of the interface, so any use of the lambda has to rely on a more dynamic typing mechanism (virtual function calls, maybe JIT inference), which is the situation I was alluding to.

Comment: Re:Why do we need Auto? (Score 4, Informative) 193

by Xrikcus (#47704779) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone

Lambdas are a primary place where auto is there precisely because C++ is a strong, statically typed language as far as possible. The alternative might be polymorphic lambdas, which would require dynamic typing. With auto the type you get, and can propagate through templates, is the type of that specific lambda. With polymorphism the type you'd get is the type of a lambda, from which you'd need to infer which lambda. Auto ensures that with a lambda, though the type is not easily known to the programmer, the type can be statically defined in the code and propagated accordingly.

Comment: Re:The answer is called LLVM (Score 1) 69

by Xrikcus (#47376967) Attached to: ARM Launches Juno Reference Platform For 64-bit Android Developers

Google supports LLVM in the NDK. Renderscript is more like OpenCL where they restrict the input to make portability easier. Google also has the portable native client definition that aims to do something more general as you are suggesting, though that's for the desktop not android, admittedly. The thing is that LLVM is not actually portable between 32-bit and 64-bit anyway because C loses too much of that information at the early stages of compilation.

If you look at the SPIR spec (, which is an attempt to write a standardised version of an LLVM subset as you suggest, but for the OpenCL C subset so avoiding some of the complexities, you'll see that there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions and it really relies on the fact that OpenCL defines the sizes and layout of types more strictly than pure C does. LLVM is not a panacea in this case and a browse of past LLVM mailing lists will tell you that many of the devs are not keen on using it for portability because it isn't really what the IR was designed for.

Comment: Re:Cynicism (Score 1) 148

Even roaming charges in countries not covered by that scheme are better. I maintain a 3 phone on a UK number even though I live in the US, partly because it's a way to keep the number I've had for 15 years, and partly because it is just cheaper to use in all countries other than the US. At the moment it's even cheaper to use IN the US if calling the UK, as you point out.

Comment: Re:Proper vectorization (Score 1) 109

by Xrikcus (#45966961) Attached to: Oracle Seeking Community Feedback on Java 8 EE Plans

Hopefully this will fall out nicely from the work they're doing on Sumatra/Graal. If they can generate independent streams of ALU work that suit GPU vector units they should be able to generate AVX/SSE code too. No need to concentrate on vectorising the entire application, which can be difficult given other aspects of the Java language, but just concentrate on using the stream APIs and related features that guarantee iteration independence.

If all else fails, lower your standards.