Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Article is total bilge water (Score 1) 177

by BarbaraHudson (#49625645) Attached to: Why Scientists Love 'Lord of the Rings'
Yes, I am :-) This is not about people's hobbies - they're free to like Tolkien or not. But the group-think here is that anyone who agrees with me that Tolkien's LotR was not all that great better put their asbestos underwear on. Same as saying that Asimov was a level below the true great Sci-Fi authors (quantity doesn't replace quality, same as LoC is a poor software metric).

Comment: Re:The Curve on Academic Courses (Score 1) 390

by BarbaraHudson (#49623271) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

On academic programming courses - of which I've taught on many - the grade distribution is definitely bimodal and there is a clear gap between those who can and those who can't. Of course, there is variance among those who can but the difference is largely that those who can largely get better whilst those who can't never get even get it.

Those who can, do...and those that can't, teach?

Good programmers make themselves available to help (teach) their cube-mates - not get into pissing contests by withholding information.

Comment: Re:News? (Score 4, Informative) 390

by BarbaraHudson (#49619739) Attached to: The Programming Talent Myth

"there is a myth that programming skill is somehow distributed on a U-shaped curve"

Never heard of this "myth." I always thought it was a slope - a lot of bad ones, a fair amount of decent ones, and some really good ones - and that it was in many ways dependent upon experience - the more experience you have, the better you get - or you go into something else after a few years.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 174

Spoken like a true drooling idiot who has lost all critical thinking skills.

Those who cannot argue logically resort to ad hominem attacks.

Yes, choice is a strong aspect of the market. But if you think the market achieves perfect outcomes in the long run just simply because it's the market ... you're delusional.K

No one said it was perfect, but thank you for creating a strawman, another weak logical fallacy.

f you think removing all government regulations will produce anything except anarchy, you really need to step back and look at reality, and what the actual evidence is for your ideology, instead of just thinking your ideology is 100% complete and infallible.

Again, another strawman. I never said anything about removing all government regulations. Some things -- like not being able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater -- make logical sense. Others -- like forcing nail salons to obtain a license in order to do their specific business -- are idiotic. If you're unable to sift the wheat from the chaff, that's your problem.

Stop pretending otherwise.

Since you're the one who's consistently stooped to ad hominem, strawmen, and completely refused to address any of the logical arguments presented -- namely, why should choice be restricted when it harms no one but the person making the choice? -- it's clear you're the one who needs to quit pretending. This is not about Uber being a corporation trying to flout rules and screw the public. It's about the rules being ridiculous in the first place and Uber is disrupting the status quo. Get this through your thick anti-capitalist skull: Uber would not exist if there was not a demand for its services. Ergo, if Uber exists, it's because the existing services model is flawed, inefficient, expensive, outmoded, or some combination thereof. Replacing something flawed with something less flawed -- or even differently flawed -- is probably a good thing. The only way to know for sure is to let the idea compete in an open market where it will live or die on the merits of its usefulness. But you don't want to do that. You want to maintain the status quo, quash choice and innovation, and tell people you know what's better for them than they do. Because reasons. And corporations bad. Yadda yadda yadda. Your vitriol in this respect is as predictable as it is laughable.

I have yet to hear anything logical or reasoned from you regarding why choice should be quashed. If the idea is bad, it will die on the all bad ideas should. If it's good then what it replaces will die on the it should.

Comment: Re:Waitasecondhere... (Score 1) 399

by BarbaraHudson (#49616365) Attached to: Tattoos Found To Interfere With Apple Watch Sensors

The original design was not faulty - it worked fine for years, until people's habits changed to carrying so much junk on their keychains. It would be the same as if people, instead of just hanging a pair of fuzzy dice from their interior rear-view mirror started hanging their purse or pack-sack from it and complaining that it broke off after a bump.

We have way too many common-sense fails nowadays, such as "This plastic bag is not a toy" and "Objects in mirror are closer than they seem" and "6PCS Precision screwdriver set not to be inserted into penis" and "Do not eat Ipod shuffle" (found on apple's website) and "Do not use for personal hygiene" (on Scrubbing Bubbles Fresh Brush) and many many more.

Comment: Re:Article is total bilge water (Score 1) 177

by BarbaraHudson (#49616239) Attached to: Why Scientists Love 'Lord of the Rings'

That would presume that every writer actually read Tolkien - a very dubious assumption, since (a) there were plenty of writers who wrote fantasy before Tolkien wrote LotR, and (b) that many modern writers would even bother reading it. I bought the series on sale because of the hype, and after 50 pages put it down because it sucks pretty much on the same level as C. S. Lewis.

Have I seen the movie? I walked into a relative's basement and after a minute I asked "What the heck is this anyway?" "Lord of the Rings." "No wonder it's so f-ed up. Bye!"

Tolkien was a poor second-rate wannabe of HG Wells and Jules Verne, or if you want to go back a few centuries, Johnathan Swift.

Comment: Re:Article is total bilge water (Score 1) 177

by BarbaraHudson (#49616119) Attached to: Why Scientists Love 'Lord of the Rings'

Honestly though, you don't have to like Tolkien, but you also can't say anything about the modern fantasy genre without in some way referencing him ... wizards, elves, dwarves, hobbits, and dragons ... you either have these things in the idiom of Tolkien, or you consciously have them not in the idiom of Tolkien.

A pity that Tolkien didn't invent any of those - then his estate could sue the modern fantasy genre into non-existence, and nothing of value would be lost except Anne McCaffrey's works. :-)

Comment: Re:Dressed for success? (Score 3, Interesting) 61

Scotty wasn't just a red shirt - he was THE red shirt. The one that everyone who failed to live up to his level got offed / eaten alive / transporter accident / phasered one time too many / crushed by a rock ... and in the unreleased episodes, killed themselves when they thought their phaser was a blow drier, stepped into to turbo lift without checking to see if it was there, didn't realize that not all planets had earth-normal atmosphere, froze to death when they forgot the difference between 20C and 20K, at the food in the cafeteria ... (that will get you every time, no matter where you are in the universe).

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 0) 174

See, "the market" isn't "nature", and "undercutting competition by ignoring laws and regulations" isn't a vacuum. That is a complete lie.

Oh really? Then explain why people are using Uber at all instead of the licensed, regulated cab companies that are omnipresent at all Uber-served locations? Saying something is a "complete lie" doesn't make it so, you know. The obviousness of reality proves you're incorrect.

And we have those laws because in the past greedy, shady douchebags with little regard for the welfare of others have decided to act like greedy, shady douchebags. And this whole crap of "people are free to not buy from greedy, shay douchebags" is so so much garbage it isn't funny.

Spoken like a true Social Justice Warrior. So, do you buy products and services from greedy, shady douchebags yourself? Or do you exercise your own free will and avoid buying from companies that exploit sweatshop workers, cut environmental corners, and screw their employees? I do, and it works out rather nicely. If you do as well then you've just invalidated your premise that government is required to keep the greedy, shady douchebags in check. If you don't, you're a hypocrite. Or, perhaps there's a third case where you're forced to buy goods/services from greedy, shady douchebags but only because they're protected by a government-sanctioned (officially or otherwise) monopoly.

Companies that consistently act in a fashion counter to what their customers want don't usually survive long. In fact, they typically only survive if -- drum roll please -- government regulation or subsidies allow them to do so, usually in the form of a protected monopoly/oligopoly or by excessive regulatory action presenting a nigh-insurmountable barrier to entry.

But go on thinking government is the solution to all that ails you. Knock yourself right out on that one.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 174

One thing is for sure, some poor Uber driver's life will be destroyed the first time there is an accident causing injury with another uninsured driver. Uber won't be standing behind them.

So? It's not like someone put a gun to their head and said "you will drive for Uber or else!"

For crying out loud folks...grow the fuck up and take some responsibility for your own actions. If you don't want the risk, don't take the job.

Comment: Re:Who will win? (Score 1) 174

Are you glad that the pilot of your airline has a license, the mechanics who work on the plane are certified, etc or is that "nanny state"?

I'm glad they have licenses, certified mechanics, etc., but you miss the point. I don't have a choice in the matter. All these things are mandated and regulated. However, if I did have a choice, I would choose of my own free will to fly the licensed, certified airline. Most other people would probably choose the same way, and the unlicensed, uncertified airline would wither and die for lack of business...all without the almighty hand of government forcing the populace to think and act a certain way.

Maybe I should buy a plane and start flying people around. I have a history of heart disease and haven't actually flown anything apart from my dad's piper when I was a kid and he let me take the controls, but I have plenty of simulator time. I should start my own airline.

Then nothing should stop you from doing so. If you can attract paying customers to your business and you prosper at it, you're filling a market need that wasn't being addressed to begin with. Your customers are happy, you're happy, and nobody is harmed by these free choices. If you give bad customer service, endanger your passengers beyond their willingness to accept risk, or run your business poorly, your endeavor will fail as it should based strictly on the merits of your idea and enterprise. Government should not be in the business of determining who can or cannot come up with a useful service. Period. Government is too corruptible, too faceless, and far, far too powerful to trust with something like this.

We are experiencing system trouble -- do not adjust your terminal.