Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 472

by ewibble (#49338991) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

The revelation that if you do something really stupid, its going to be slower than if you don't, not isn't exactly a new revelation is it? They could have stuck solving the traveling salesman problem in memory before writing to disk to, but that too would not have yielded any new revelations.

Big O notation has been around in Computer Science since 1976, ( this is hardly new research.

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 472

by ewibble (#49338503) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

They basically they didn't test the same thing,

They tested concatenating 1 byte, 10 byte and 1000 byte strings in memory and disk.

In java each time you append a string you allocate an new piece of memory and copy the old string into it. When you append do it on disk it will allocate the data in blocks. The the proper way of doing this type of operation in to use a StringBuffer or StringBuilder.

The string concatenation method is order n^2 where with pre -allocation and just appending it is order n. The whole thing about order is k*n^2 will always get slower than j*n, for a big enough value of n, no matter how much bigger j is than k.

So what they are saying is don't do really stupid stuff in memory or it could be slower than doing not so stupid stuff on disk. No shit.

Oh yes then they wrote the string out to disk in the memory test as well, effectively doing the same operation as disk only method. Just to be on the safe side so your operation in memory must be slower.

Either these "researchers" are stupid or just want to make the headlines.

Comment: Re:classic example? (Score 3, Insightful) 513

by ewibble (#49332503) Attached to: A Bechdel Test For Programmers?

"The objectifier treats the object as something whose experience and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account" -- check

Your experience of sex must be very different from mine. A very important part to me is that the woman enjoys it too.

The other parts well, are very general.

"The objectifier treats the object as a tool of his or her purposes"

Arguably you do pretty much everything for your own purposes, even making someone else happy. You do it because you experience pleasure from there happiness.

"The objectifier treats the object as interchangeable (a) with other objects of the same type..."

If someone you want to have sex with refuses, what are you supposed to do? Not have sex ever again because no other man/woman will do? If you get no longer want to have sex with someone clearly they are not interchangeable since the old person will not do.

Comment: Re: OMFG (Score 1) 281

by ewibble (#49330141) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

The only logical conclusion to this, only a very small number of people. If you are part of the 1% and think you are safe, then think again. Once you eliminate 99% guess what? The remaining 1% will split into rich and poor, its all relative. The middle class live like kings compared to what they did 200 years ago. The new 1% will start to become the ruling class, why would they need the poorer 99% when robots can do all the work? Its not like the 1% make money of the sweat of there bough anyway, they make it by taking their cut from the work of others. Rinse and repeat until no one is left. After all the richest person, doesn't need anyone to do the work since AI can do it all.

Or we all could realize, that we have enough, we don't need to endlessly increase our the amount of stuff we have. We now have enough resources for everyone to have a comfortable life. Our economic goal needs to change focus, from this endless drive to produce more so we can consume more, why? Statistics show that even the richest are better off when society is more equal. We have the capability to do this, the question is do we have the will power?

Comment: Re:What kind of person did they study? (Score 1) 79

by ewibble (#49314457) Attached to: MRIs Show Our Brains Shutting Down When We See Security Prompts

Write systems allow you to bypass them safely, like automatically spawn a VM to run the code in.

If you think about it, the question is a stupid one. Do you wish look at naked women? Warning there is a chance that something bad may happen to your computer.

The answer is clearly yes, they probably knew that before they started looking. People will risk a real virus that can kill them to have sex they not going to say no the risk of a computer virus.

Porn aside, every piece of software I install, is dangerous. Large companies can, and have installed thing that I would consider viruses on computers. Just because the software is signed doesn't mean anything apart from maker of the software was willing to pay the fee to get it signed. If only ran actually trusted, I would have to write every piece of software myself, effectively making my computer useless.

What we need is a virtual condom, (Ok back to the porn) effectively allowing us to run the software, and be safe doing it.

Comment: Re:do you really want the uninformed voting (Score 1, Interesting) 1087

by ewibble (#49295779) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

They maybe not voting of the facts now, but imagine making everyone vote, even the ones that can't even be bothered voting now.

My opinion you is they should be advertising, you don't know don't vote. Not the current attitude of its your democratic duty to vote. It is your democratic duty to make an INFORMED vote, if you can't be bothered being informed you should not vote.

Making everyone vote would only increase the uninformed vote.

Comment: Re:One and done (Score 1) 138

by ewibble (#49285747) Attached to: Windows 10's Biometric Security Layer Introduced

also biometrics don't really lend themselves to encryption, since they slightly change each time so your encryption key changes each time.

You could possibly hash that key an in a way that it doesn't change but then storing the encryption key on the device kind of defeats the purpose of encryption.

Also if any body scanned your fingerprint/DNA whatever all you encryption is now compromised.

Would you really be willing to log into a web site with your fingerprint, even your bank, if doing so would immediately grant them access to every other thing you logged into.

Comment: Re:Asking Mattel to make toys more ethical?????? (Score 3, Insightful) 163

by ewibble (#49271691) Attached to: "Hello Barbie" Listens To Children Via Cloud

Men are told they can't get into child care, ok not because they, stupid but because they are not capable of controlling themselves.

Ever heard the sayings:
Men can't multitask?
Men don't ask for directions?
what about this article that described how women better at certain tasks:
or this one

I have never thought women where less smart than men, in fact I was of the opinion that the where smarter.

Men are often portrayed in media as beer swilling, sex crazed, idiots that can't be pried away from watching sports.

To reference the Simpsons, which was mentioned in the last thread, rank the family in order of intelligence.

My guess would be:
Lisa, Marge, Maggie, Bart, Homer.

Comment: Re:Eqaul Protection (Score 1) 757

Same crime same percentage of spending money lost. how is this not equal?

Also you are in a fantasy world if you think that the current system gives rich and poor an equal level of protection. The poor, or even the average person cannot afford the same lawyers as rich people.

Comment: Re:Kinda 50 50 on this one. (Score 1) 757

I don't think that would happen, firstly because the rich very rarely get the raw end of the deal, the would hire lawyers if there was even the slightest evidence they where being targeted. It might end up costing the department more in legal fees than they would make, it is not worth fighting a $150 ticket in court but a $56,000 is a different matter.

Second the fines would not go directly go to the officer issuing the ticket, and as long as you don't incentivize them based on value of tickets issued, why would any body issuing the tickets care.

Comment: Re:Income is not constant (Score 1) 757

No 15k/hr over the limit would result in you losing 6 days (assuming spending money per day is total income after tax/number of days in year) income for that year.

So worst case scenario you only earn't money in that year you would only lose 2% of your total income. Solution work more than 1 year of your life.

If you happened to win the lottery that year well Ok you may loose 2% of your lottery winnings, how would you cope?

Comment: Re:I Don't Know (Score 3, Insightful) 284

by ewibble (#49210725) Attached to: UK Gov't Asks: Is 10 Years In Jail the Answer To Online Pirates?

I don't think I have ever seen actual proof that there is even loss of expected return. Just random speculation because someone downloads a movie for free they would automatically have purchased it at the higher price. It maybe seen as advertising and actually increase sales.

The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.