Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I had this problem, then I got f.lux. (Score 4, Informative) 172

by disambiguated (#48658507) Attached to: Study: Light-Emitting Screens Before Bedtime Disrupt Sleep

when things are dark, and you need more light, it dims things.

Exactly the opposite: when things are dark, your pupils dilate and you need less light. Do you turn your smartphone brightness down in bright sunlight?

But brightness isn't the point -- color temperature is. I haven't read the documentation; the software is too simple and easy for that, but the homepage describes what it does. Flux lowers the color temperature at night, which interferes less with sleep. I also find it much more pleasant.

Comment: Re:Real cross-platform is HARD (Score 2) 525

It's nowhere near as hard as you're claiming. Those are bad practices even if you only ever intend to run on Windows. And .NET has had portable ways to do these things since version 1.0, and always encouraged their use.

The example above illustrates that; it is way more conventient to combine pathnames with such a non-portable string concatenation than it is with the right approach.

To me the correct, portable code looks easier to read and write. You don't have to check if directoryname already has a trailing seperator, for example. The Path APIs will also handle .. (and ~/ on linux).

In practice there are only a handful of things you need to know to write portable code in .NET. It was always designed to be cross-platform.

Comment: Re:RIP Java! (Score 1) 525

There is no interpreter -- .NET code is never interpreted. The output of the C# compiler is CIL (Common Intermediate Language), which is akin to the output of the front end of the LLVM compilers (called IR "Intermediate Representation"). (note: .NET is older than LLVM)

In both .NET and LLVM, the intermediate language is not suitable for interpretation. It is always translated into native machine instructions before execution. In .NET that can either be at runtime (JITed) or install time (NGENed).

I'm simplifying of course. They don't need to write an interpreter, they need to write a back-end and port the runtime components.

Also, I don't think there's much if any C/C++ left in it, it's C# all the way down.

Comment: Re:Yeah, right... (Score 2) 459

by disambiguated (#48362543) Attached to: Black IT Pros On (Lack Of) Racial Diversity In Tech

It really does not make any sense.

I totally agree. I've conducted dozens of interviews for software engineers. I couldn't hire a black developer if my life depended on it -- I've never had a black candidate. I know the recruiters aren't to blame -- they're desperate for qualified candidates. There were no black people in my university classes either. The dearth of women in IT gets plenty of headlines, but I've known lots of women programmers, including 3 bosses over the years. In my entire career, I've only ever known one black programmer.

It must start long before high school.

Comment: Re:And Self-Actualization is not the goal. (Score 2) 212

Employer's have no incentive to care whether or not their employees are bored

That is just categorically wrong, in any industry. It's laughable in the software industry where getting and keeping employees is one of the biggest challenges.

You obviously don't work in the software industry. Employers not only tolerate all kinds of non productive things, they actively encourage them. Software engineers are treated like spoiled, geeky royalty.

The moment you, as an employee, start arguing that you should invest the employer's time in something that is less profitable but more interesting, you will be replaced.

OK, now I know you don't work in software engineering. Or any engineering. Trying to convince our employer to do things that are less profitable but more interesting is what we do.

Comment: Re:sounds a lot like an argument I hear a lot (Score 1) 212

C is not going anywhere any time soon.

I think it's a myth that people aren't learning C. I interview a lot of devs, many just out of college. Most of them know C/C++. They may be more comfortable with Java/C#/whatever, but they at least know C++ syntax and understand the memory model, etc. It would make no sense for universities to ignore C/C++, if for no other reason than the huge amount of code out there in those languages that you may need to understand. Kids in CS these days are still writing their own compilers, toy OSs and memory managers.

High level languages are more productive, no doubt about that, so it makes sense to learn them. But lower level knowledge is not made obsolete. You're still better off knowing C/C++ and some machine-level things, at least enough to read the code, understand a stack trace, memory dump, single step through compiled code, etc. So learning the high level tools is in addition to the traditional tools, not instead of them.

Comment: Re:That's true, but... (Score 2) 212

Anyone who thinks that programming is getting easier due to automation isn't a programmer.

I'll second that. I've been coding professionally for almost 20 years. Even done some assembly. Yes the tools are much better and more is automated, but the amount you need to know is only growing, and the expectations have never been higher. I don't think the automation is even keeping up actually. Making software is not getting easier.

Comment: Re:yes (Score 1) 91

by disambiguated (#48345463) Attached to: fMRI Data Reveals How Many Parallel Processes Run In the Brain

our brains are not "like computers" in how they work

True enough, but that says nothing about what kinds of processing can be realized in either. There are so many layers of abstraction between the brain and the mind that it doesn't make sense to say that minds are made of neurons. Minds are made of abstract things which are made of abstract things, (which are... etc, etc), which are eventually made of neurons. But they could eventually be made of transistors, what does it matter how the bottom few layers work?

Comment: Re:Hold up now (Score 1) 167

by disambiguated (#48331101) Attached to: New Website Offers Provably Fair Solutions To Everyday Problems
Oops, I guess I did imply that. I just meant that their are good reasons why the tax code is complicated, and that shouldn't prevent the taxation of intellectual property. The whole system needs massive reform anyway; companies that own a lot of IP already put them in holding companies and then licence them back to themselves.

Comment: Re:sibling fairness (Score 1) 167

by disambiguated (#48329911) Attached to: New Website Offers Provably Fair Solutions To Everyday Problems
Hmm.... Maybe they should do this with intellectual property.

The owner of intellectual property would be taxed based on a value the owner specifies annually. The government would have the option to purchase it for that amount, perhaps with an added premium. If the property is sold, the purchaser is taxed initially based on what they paid. Licences & royalties would be limited based on the taxed value.

I was about to say maybe this would be too complicated to get right... then I remembered our tax code.

If it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary. -- Samuel Clemens