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:Facebook already has enough email "chain letter (Score 3, Interesting) 95

by acroyear (#49278903) Attached to: Facebook Introduces Payment System

For that matter, it was in pre-messenger "Chat" for Facebook that many of us were hit by those "Hey, I'm stuck in London and my wallet was stolen, can you send me some cash?" scams from hacked accounts.

Making it easy to say yes to that kind of crap is just ridiculous.

Comment: To which I say, "duh?" (Score 2) 247

by acroyear (#49177641) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

from my blog on this, just now:

Proponents of refactoring have never ever said otherwise (unless they themselves are confused on the matter). Code is only readable if it is either simple, or clearly follows design patterns, or is clearly commented and the comments are up to date with the current version of the code. Code is only easy to change when it is readable and when all external dependencies are well known. That last part is a key thing that metrics aren't necessarily able to capture.

A refactoring project, if not refactoring to the right design patterns to address what was wrong with the structure in the first place, is not going to improve it. One must know clearly why the current structure is making a bug-fix or a new feature difficult to implement.

And while some refactorings are 'good' in that they reduce a lot of copy-paste code, others are good because they add code, or add classes (an alternative increase in complexity). Different refactorings have different effects, and are used in different situations.

And as always, if you don't need to refactor, don't. A refactoring is to improve the design, not to rewrite for its own sake.

And there-in lies the great flaw of the whole idea of such a study: you can't measure the quality of a software design. Some things you just have to judge for yourself, based on experience and attention, and no arbitrary metrics number will ever differentiate between a good design and a rubbish heap.

Disclaimer: I hate software metrics.

Comment: can we stop it with the f'in' zombie $#!+? (Score 1) 247

they aren't real. they were never real. they never will be real.

if you're talking fiction and you want to talk about WWZ or Walking Dead, or whatever game it is you all are still playing, fine.

But stop posting crap like this where people make simulations about zombies and apocalypses as if this shit is real.

Comment: Re:What percentage can even get it? (Score 1) 437

by acroyear (#48764133) Attached to: Is Kitkat Killing Lollipop Uptake?

on top of that, being only a month or so old, it wasn't ready when the makers like Samsung needed to do their final packaging and testing for the Christmas season phones as all that had to happen in July through September to give the factories time to put the chip in and ship. How can I buy a 5.0 phone when the vast majority phones on the market now left the factory 3 months before 5.0 was released?

plus a 5g or 6g phone speaking 5.0 is going to be quite more expensive than the 2013 4g that as a simple matter of *hardware* is going to be fast enough for what most people throw at it, at least in the first few months. Why get a $250 (after contract) 5g phone with 5.0 on it when the 4g is only $99 and will run all the same apps just as well?

Comment: i'm not buying a new device for the upgrade (Score 1) 437

by acroyear (#48764111) Attached to: Is Kitkat Killing Lollipop Uptake?

if it is that much better, samsung would already be pushing the updates to my more recent devices.

one problem was the timing of the release. they put it out just a month ago, but everybody bought their Christmas toys *2* months ago, and that meant they had to be in the factory *4* months ago. It wasn't out nearly in time to make the 2014 sales, so it has no chance of an upswing until this summer or next Christmas.

Comment: because setting up a SSH cert is still a PitA (Score 1) 203

by acroyear (#48725955) Attached to: Why Aren't We Using SSH For Everything?

seriously, have you ever tried to get a cert installed properly in J2EE? Node? PHP/Apache? Ever tried to get PGP working right on t-bird?

There is nothing about the process that is straightforward in any way (including the cert signing stuff). Thus, most websites will simply find it easier to not bother. Let those who can pay for experts pay for it, but until expertise becomes "push this button" easy, and still almost free, it isn't worth it for typical web traffic.

Comment: How PARC first envisioned... (Score 1) 567

by acroyear (#48573869) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

The article just talks about web-reading, and how more and more webpages are being responsive (for mobile reasons) in ways that actually now optimize sites for vertical orientation over horizontal.

However, from a coding and word processing* perspective, vertical layout is a bit better, too, as it allows you to see more of the text and the text's context, than horizontal mode does. Thus, most developers who pay attention to such things do use both, as the first 5point comment suggests above.

In fact, that was the actual vision of the PARC crew that invented GUI and WYSIWYG back in the 70s: the Xerox Alto workstation they created did have a vertical monitor, for this very reason: the idea was that if you were using a word processor to show you a page's layout, seeing the whole page on screen was the desired effect. They discovered it improved coding productivity once they were using the workstation to produce the software.

(that said, it is NOT better for spreadsheets or powerpoint, or database-editing tools, so there we are.)

Comment: Re:The extent hearing is determined by physics... (Score 2) 80

by acroyear (#48306721) Attached to: Birds Found Using Human Musical Scales For the First Time

That may be a fact, but we didn't need to know any of that. And neither do the birds.

That's the whole point of the harmonic series: our ears, in their ability to hear, can hear the overtones in a note because they are there *physically* in the sound. It is unavoidable.

"Dissonant" notes, such as a tritone or a minor 2nd, aren't dissonant because of some sine wave detail: that's just a matter of mathematical transposition and simplification. The notes are dissonant because their collective overtones within them are clashing all the way up the harmonic series as well. We hear ALL of those harmonic clashes, even if we're not conscious of it. The sine wave isn't why they are dissonant: the harmonics are.

Comment: Re:The extent hearing is determined by physics... (Score 2) 80

by acroyear (#48306555) Attached to: Birds Found Using Human Musical Scales For the First Time

Indeed. The nature of the relationship between the 'first' and 'fifth', the first harmonic overtone, is inherent in the actual physics of sound itself. The order of 'discovery' of the other notes of the scale inherently result from developing an ear to notice the other harmonics - it only takes finding 8 harmonics to end up with a pentatonic scale, found in almost every historical culture in the world.

It does, however, take a matter of conscious choice to actually develop the whole circle of fifths, the idea of modulation, and then the necessity of tempering the instrument - all aspects strictly of western tonality (with the resulting western a-tonality that followed in the 20th century: our atonality is actually still a limitation of our instruments of choice and the temperament they inherited).

I don't expect the birds to actually get that far...and even if they did, we'd just be accusing them of impersonating Messiaen's works.

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.