Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fake (Score 1) 880

by gnoshi (#48605855) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

Funny thing: most Australians don't share your view that the current licensing regimes (such as needing a valid reason for owning a gun, and 'self defence' is not considered a valid reason) in Australia are infringing on personal rights. We like to refer to it as 'good sense' (although you can always find some who will disagree).

Comment: Re:I don't see it (Score 3, Informative) 103

by gnoshi (#48399761) Attached to: Ars Dissects Android's Problems With Big Screens -- Including In Lollipop

Note that getting to the full quick settings UI requires swiping down twice; the first swipe gets you notifications, the second one adds the quick settings. Alternatively, you can do a two-finger swipe down and you get straight to the quick settings. I can't reliably do that with two thumbs (too hard to synchronize the swipes), so that method really does require fingers. But two quick swipes work fine.

On a tablet, the one-finger vs two-finger swipedown makes sense (because it is easier than reaching from the right corner of the screen to the left) but on a phone the right-vs-left makes much more sense because you're more likely to be holding and operating the phone with the same hand (Note: my N5 is broken atm so I can't check the on-phone behaviour).

There are other things I dislike about Android on a large tablet, but the biggest one has been around since 4.0... having the 'navigation' buttons in the middle of the device where neither hand is conveniently close to them.

Comment: Re:Reliability is key. (Score 1) 600

by gnoshi (#47904911) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

That's not really relevant in this context. In order to bypass the iPhone fingerprint lock, they need a clean print, a good photograph of that print, and a bit of time. It is easier to just go and buy a gun than to go through that process, if you've got the time to mess around doing such things.

In contrast, this is useful when someone else has just picked up your gun and you *really* don't want them to be able to fire it.

Comment: Re: Anthropometrics (Score 2) 819

by gnoshi (#47848893) Attached to: 3 Recent Flights Make Unscheduled Landings, After Disputes Over Knee Room

I'm looking forward to the next change when speakers start piping in the wailing of the dying into the economy section, and if you don't want to listen to the wailing then you should be paying for the 'economy plus', which has mysteriously increased to include half the seats from the old 'economy' section. Maybe just remove the cushions and have 'economy' sitting on planks of wood, with a full inch of open-cell foam in the 'economy plus' section and perhaps an extra $5 for each additional inch of foam.

Comment: Re:Breaking things is how we learn (Score 1) 116

by gnoshi (#47644413) Attached to: Wiring Programmers To Prevent Buggy Code

Indeed. Detection of 'struggling' (or should we call it 'cognitive challenge' in this context) provides an excellent opportunity to have another developer head over and for them both to work on the problem, reducing the likelihood of bugs and design errors and potentially providing skills improvement for both people which the company then benefits from.

If someone is consistently struggling when working on basic tasks, it may be that the person isn't suitable for the role (and some people really aren't) but if you never provide challenges you'll explode the first time a really big challenge arises.

Comment: Re:This is offensive (Score 1) 89

by gnoshi (#47511449) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

They are saying developers are the source of bugs (mistakes?), but not in the way you are suggesting. Developers are the source of bugs in that they write the code which includes the bug, and so it is not particularly surprising that you can read biometrics that indicate when developers are likely to produce code with bugs.
For example, if the developer hasn't slept in two days and so has saggy eyes and wildly drifting eye movement then that's a pretty good indicator that there will be some bugs, and indeed the developer is the source of the bugs because they are the source of the code.
Of course, the manager standing over their shoulder with an unreasonable product release deadline and the threat of job loss is probably responsible for the bugs in any reasonable sense.

Analogy time:
If someone is driving a car wearing a blindfold and crashes, they crashed the car. The person who put the blindfold on, held the gun to their head, and said 'drive' is probably responsible for the crash by any reasonable definition.

In summary: I don't necessarily think it is offensive to say that bugs are coded by developers, because they are. However, it is offensive to say that they are responsible for the bugs without taking into account the broader context in which they are working (and indeed, saying they are responsible for the bugs still doesn't necessarily mean that they are in some way wrong or deficient for entering a bug. People - even brilliant people - can and do make mistakes, and that is why review processes do (or should) exist.

You can fool all the people all of the time if the advertising is right and the budget is big enough. -- Joseph E. Levine