Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Not surprising (Score 4, Insightful) 140

by beelsebob (#49454947) Attached to: Finding an Optimal Keyboard Layout For Swype

Just so you know, your myth of mythiness is a myth. The guy writing this blog post fails at reading comprehension.

His one sole piece of "evidence" for this being a myth is an academic paper saying [IF] you set out to design a slow keyboard layout, you would probably design qwerty.

That's not the same thing as the person designing qwerty set out to make a slow layout. It's in fact well documented that his goal was to reduce jamming, and in fact he filed a patent for the design (US 79868), stating that explicitly as his goal.

The fact that reducing jamming meant that the letters were laid out in a pretty weird way just happened to slow down typing on a non-jamming-keyboard as a coincidence.

Comment: Re:Not surprising (Score 4, Informative) 140

by beelsebob (#49454211) Attached to: Finding an Optimal Keyboard Layout For Swype

No, no it wasn't.

It was designed so that the hammers for successive key presses came from different areas of the typewriter, and hence reduce jamming (speeding up typing).

It happens that this is slower than the optimal layout if you ignore jamming, but much faster if you don't.

The result is that several layouts are better now for keyboards (which don't jam), but the design intention was not to slow typists down. It was to reduce jamming, and in doing so speed them up.

Comment: Re:Only correlation has been established. (Score 3, Interesting) 96

by beelsebob (#49452581) Attached to: Being Overweight Reduces Dementia Risk

Actually, studies tend to show that being slightly over weight reduces all-cause mortality compared to "normal".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

Your all-cause mortality rate for overweight, and grade-1 obese are roughly 0.95 times that for "normal" weight. However, being grade-2 obese or more is associated with a sudden, very rapid increase in mortality rate.

Basically, being slightly overweight isn't bad, and may even be pretty good. Being more-than-slightly overweight is really really really bad though.

Comment: Re:Lies, bullshit, and more lies ... (Score 1) 442

Not necessarily, a company can make more money by replacing high-salary people with lower-salaried workers. In fact, that's what many companies have done. You're committing a false un-equivalency; you're saying that companies that make money are successful, when there are companies that make money that can be unsuccessful. The word you may be looking for is "profitable", but "profitable" is very different from "successful".

Ah I see, so what you're arguing is that the US should be a country that drifts by with a bunch of people doing unsuccessful but barely profitable half assed things?

Fair enough then. I think we've found where we disagree about how the US should be.

Comment: Re:Lies, bullshit, and more lies ... (Score 1) 442

Your hypothetical does not actually address the correct situation.

Lets say that ford is able to hire the best of the best (no matter what country they're from), and in doing so, is able to design a better car than Volkswagen is able to, at a cheaper price. The result of doing that is that people who were considering buying a Volkswagen will now consider buying a Ford instead. Ford will do better, and as a result have the cash flow to be able to hire more people. Ford's management will figure out what to do with that cash flow, and invest it in some new project (lets say, self driving cars), and as a result, will employ more people.

"It's ten o'clock... Do you know where your AI programs are?" -- Peter Oakley

Working...