Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:risk something (Score 1) 275

by drolli (#47968709) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How To Avoid Becoming a Complacent Software Developer?

Yes. Usually the deal is this:

-To the outside it looks like there is a great idea in your project, which will be attributed to
-To the inside everybody knows it would not work that smoothly without your understanding.
-You know that you kept back the little vital idea for which you *really* did that system (hey, it's practical even without that idea)

Wise bosses stick to the deal that they will recommend you highly. Stupid bosses dont. I always stop irrevocably working with stupid bosses at the next suitable painless occasion. And yes, you seen the drop in the projects/groups output of stupid bosses when people leave like that (i know a project, where the 3 most competent people - me included - all left within 6 months to "better jobs").

Comment: maybe 16Gb is enough (Score 1) 262

by drolli (#47954105) Attached to: Why the iPhone 6 Has the Same Base Memory As the iPhone 5

maybe 16Gb is enough for the real current use cases for the average iphone user?

Apple has been pretty good in identifying the users needs and limiting what they put in the phones.

Which was the case for the iphone 1, where everybody wondered about UMTS. As a matter of fact, iphones are not meant to be "general puprose computers", and they suck ehen used as such. They are perfectly balanced media players.

Comment: atheism is just another religion (Score 1) 937

by drolli (#47901169) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

we have no idea what is outside our universe. we can only test theories inside the universe.

making testable predictions is the realm of science.

making untestable predictions is the realm of religion.

the hypothesis that there is no god/higher force outside the universe is as untestable as the hypothesis that ther is any kind of god outside the universe.

as a physicist I therefore am agnostic, buy I expect religions not to make any conclusions which affect my life by conclusions from unproven fairytales

Comment: Matlab is full of strange features (Score 1) 729

-Possibility to access the "parent" scope
-Distinction between "workspace scope" and "global variables"
-Really weird stateful behaviour when using/declaring global variables
-Impossibility to redirect the output of commands under special circumstances
-Lazy copy in combination with slices (yeah, awfully practical, but run a profiler to see what happens)
-At least two different ways of associating data with "handle objects"
-"handle objects" (feels like the early 80s)
-weird scopes for function declarations
-absence of a decent "map" operator
-half-assed "function handles"

Comment: A complicated question. (Score 1) 203

by drolli (#47833539) Attached to: Is There a Creativity Deficit In Science?

I worked for 10 years as a researcher in quantum computation. Looking back, i would say that i see a mixed bag. On the negative side i have to say that many groups try to jump on whichever direction the most recent five papers in the field had been in, very often with little or no result at all. (if the Nature paper is out, the other group already followed the new path for five years).

On the positive side, we come to the other groups/leaders, which follow a direction which adresses aa problem until it's solved. In the superconducting QC field that would be for example (There are many other good and creative groups in the field) the group of John Martinis. They adressed the problems they saw over years in hard work (and that started in 2002 or earlier), at least such effort is usually rewarded in science on the long term.
But again on the negative side: the papers they managed to put in Nature or Science were focused on the final results of the engineering - the papers which really adressed the problem puzzeling the community for years, where they really found out how to reach the goal were published in Physical Review B, Physical Review Letters and some other Journals. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 210503, Phys. Rev. B 68, 224518, Phys. Rev. B 67, 094510, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 117901, Phys. Rev. B 77, 180508). The fact that enhancing the building blocks for a final result gives you much less impact factor than obtaining the final result make the stategy not be creative and hope for others to fix problems a reasonable one. Even catching a Nature paper every few years is enough for a conservative, non-abitious group leader, so you can burn a few postdocs in average, which you put up to the current topic, and if you a lucky, your results look accidentally good every few years, even if you did not contribute much to science.

Comment: Depends (Score 1, Insightful) 546

by drolli (#47819545) Attached to: Does Learning To Code Outweigh a Degree In Computer Science?

I hoold a PhD in Physics, but coding is a important part of my usual jobs (i am a consultant).

Educating myself in conding and following a master, and then a PhD in Physics trained very different aspects of my skills.

None of each outweiths the other, and i am feeling very confident that i will never be without a job

Assembly language experience is [important] for the maturity and understanding of how computers work that it provides. -- D. Gries