Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Quantum Computing Required? (Score 1) 291

by drolli (#49331723) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

Former quantum computing researcher here:

Linking High-level Brain functions to Quantum Computing is BS. Long before we reach the technology to build a QC big enough to compete here, we will have the technology to build a calssical computer simulating the brain. As a matter of fact, since the brain is mainly associative and works in by throwing away lots of infromation, which is something which is not good for QC.

Comment: Hmmm. (Score 1) 515

by drolli (#49331553) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

The occurence of in a project may not necessarily reflect the attitude of the project towards gender issues, but may be more reflecting the percentage of women in a team.

It is funny how somebody who acts as a CTO tries to convert a test which specifically examines the dialogs (which are untimatly a important part of a movie) to something where the statistics will skew results to meaningless garbage to derive from some weird side definition.

Maybe she was mistaken, function calls are not human interaction. More interesting would be an closer look at the process of the creation of the function (like "at least two roles in the project interacting directly must be filled by women") Still, there would be the statistics issue with this, but at least it could tell something about the human interaction.

Comment: Stupid documentation (Score 1) 764

by drolli (#49315503) Attached to: A Software Project Full of "Male Anatomy" Jokes Causes Controversy

Documenttion may be funny, but if the readme mainly consists of jokes i drop the attempt of using somethign without hesitation. I dont care if the jokes are good or bad (like here), but my experience is that people who do ot follow a naming scheme directly to whats going on usually produce worthless code anyway.

And: i am not a woman.

Comment: Re:Depends (Score 1) 184

And this is an excellent sample of how FOSS people alienate other people.

a) Person a says "i like commercial SW a"

b) Person a says "but i figured out that ultra-mature (>20y) FOSS b (which is nearly compatible to a) is even better for some things"

c) Person b says "use project c" (which is immature and incompatible)

Comment: Depends (Score 3, Interesting) 184

I use matlab. I like matlab. It's not the matter if its expensive (which it is) or not.

The point is: There have been applicaitions (more than one) in my past, where octave (a free matlab clone) served me much better, plainly for the reason that i could actually recompile it or adapt it in a way that it ran exactly like i wanted it to run. usually these "unusual" circumstance involved running it on limited HW, automatically, with limited memory, many instances, or independent of a nework connection to the license activation.

Comment: Wow. The linked thread... (Score 1) 338

by drolli (#49210413) Attached to: Google Chrome Requires TSYNC Support Under Linux

is the reason why you should not let constructive users interact with ignorant technical guys.

What is so hard about actually believing to a user that if he repots something, it may be important to him (in this case chromium/flash), for reasosn which you or he may or not like, but thich are probably there.

If you dont like something, act non-constructive and get ideological.

Comment: Re:Perspective from a chemist (Score 2) 188

by drolli (#49206787) Attached to: The Origin of Life and the Hidden Role of Quantum Criticality

I agree; i am a quantum physicist. The paper goes seomwhere between effortless phenemenological observation, overgeneralizations and claims which are so remarkably undefined (like that biomolecules are neither insulator nor metals - thanks) hat it not clear which theoretical hypothesis they are going to make here.

The really impoertan question is: can i use their theoretical observation to predict parameters of molecules at some places? Can they actually reduce the number of variables needes to describe a problem? Is there any testable prediction or unexplained mechanism?

Comment: Idiots. (Score 2) 217

* Really: they had a "team happiness person"?
* Featuritis: Why not start with a single sensor (if possible itegrated in the basic product), but try to develop everything once
* Idiotic presumptions everywhere like asssuming that the non-availability of a specifi part for V1 is best cured by a completely revised V2. Or that the resolution of the display matters
* Senseless Perfectionism: Hoho, the company they hired was "not able to use github". Yes, then take the source and put it there yourself (no need to delay, and no excuse for delivering late)
* Lack of a preexisting SW concept (they really had to have a running prototype where a backer looked at the source to tell them that the MC could be put to low-power mode. (If you select a MC, the first thing you do should be to determing if the state transitions between the sleep modes support what you want to do *on the high level*)
* Complete lack of technical understanding about MCs (they complained that thet had no "arduino expert"). MCs are great tools. You dont select the MCs by the SW you have, or by how conevnient and popular they are in the "maker" circles. You select them by the IOs they have, and by the power consumption. For most things you actually dont end up with anything close to an arnduino (e.g. for low power: look at the MSP430, for raw IO features: look at the M16C series)
* A broken assumtion from the very start: That this needs to be modular. I am pretty convinced that (lets exclude the laser module) most of the sensors could have been integrated right away, for less money than the box you put them in.

That being said, this should have been a 2-4 man project for 6 months, with focus on solving the technical problems first. A more or less working prototype electronics design (2man months for the most important sensors) should have been done before promising anything on Kickstarter.

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