Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Areal density... (Score 2) 122

In the 1997/1998 timeframe, the difference was that the submissions were pretty good, so rubberstamping worked OK. There were still frequent omissions and inaccuracies, but this was further handled by the commentary being exceedingly high quality. Frequently someone working on the technology, project, or software, would chime in with clarification and because comment counts were low the signal would get through the noise.

So no, the "editors" really were never that, but the system worked decently when it was a smaller user base of more knowledgable players. Then as the slide towards uselessness and hostile users began, accounts, scoring, moderation, metamoderation, and so on were all instituted, but there's really no overcoming ignorance in volume.

Comment Re:Agreed (Score 1) 574

I disagree.

That's the reasonable, but minority scenario. A lot of times they want you to solve their relatively arbitrary and ridiculous problem in a very short timescale.

I give very very simple problems and hope the candidate makes small mistakes that I can watch them figure out. Sometimes they just ace them and I don't learn much but I can ask another.

A coworker asks candidates to implement the 8 queens solution using an actual computer. He doesn't care about the difference between someone who knows the answer and someone who has never considered the problem before, but expects in 90 minutes that a programmer should be able to get it working even if he has to give a few hints.

Those are what I consider somewhat reasonable questions.

However, most of my peers ask code golf questions bout C++ minutiae, or baroque algorithms questions for unusual application domains and seems to think candidates who can't rattle of answers don't know how to program. That's been the majority case at other companies I've worked at as well.

Comment Re:One example doesn't make an "always" (Score 1) 728

You have to show that the information is intended to cause harm as the intent, and it generally has to be false. This means that a lot of things that get called libel in the UK aren't in the US (typically things that are true!).

It also means the burden of demonstration in the US is quite high. Demonstrating intent is in some cases quite difficult.

In this sort of case, the intent is fairly easy to show, and the reckless disregard for the veracity along with the falseness is easy to show. However the cost of prosecution to the individual is prohibitive, and the actors are frequently legion by the time the problem becomes big.

Slashdot Top Deals

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...