Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: In my experience (Score 1) 538

Old chemistry university textbooks (even for beginners) contain everything you need to know about how to make explosives.

It may be less condensed (you actually may have to read 100 pages), and it may not be in the form of "mix a and b and cook on the oven at 200 degree", but I would not follow some simple recipe withou understanding every step anyway (i actually dont play with explosive chemistry at all, too many stupic kids blew off their fingers).


Comment: Re:Quantum Computing Required? (Score 1) 294

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) 522

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) 765

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?

Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac!