Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: hundreds of thousands per second (Score 1) 360

by raymorris (#48650133) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

That's interesting information, and useful for anyone serving hundreds of thousands of requests per second.

For the 99.9% of sites that serve single to hundreds of requests per second, it might pay to keep in mind that your sedan is not designed to run on jet fuel. What someone going a thousand times as fast does isn't necessarily relevant.

Comment: Re:here's a real-life case to explain criminal int (Score 1) 167

by raymorris (#48650057) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

> The cop knowingly signed the document. Isn't this more important than the beliefs of the thief?

The defendant is on trial, not the cop. So what matters is whether the defendant knowingly committed the crime. (Some crimes have a standard such as "recklessly" rather than "knowingly"). When determining whether Joe is guilty, courts look at Joe's actions and Joe's intent.

If the cop violated Constitutional rights to get evidence, one penalty for the cop is that they can't use the evidence. There happens to be a side benefit to the defendant in some cases, but the goal is to discourage the cops from performing unlawful searches. In the scenario at hand, I don't see any Constitutional right being violated, so a motion to suppress would be without grounds. Unless you can articulate some _Constitutional_ grounds to suppress that I'm not thinking of.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 649

by phantomfive (#48649857) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

There is quite a bit of work being done to understand where all of the heat is going, but that has been discussed on here before.

That's one way to describe it, and certainly some scientists are inventing some complex hypotheses for that purpose.

A more simple scenario is that the earth isn't heating as much as expected (which mainly means that the feedbacks aren't as significant as some scientists hoped).

Comment: Re:More job loss (Score 3, Insightful) 148

by roman_mir (#48649429) Attached to: The Magic of Pallets

yes, that is what the parent post said and was specific to use sarcasm tag for people who he knew wouldn't get it to accent the point that ignorant luddits should in principle be against every labour saving innovation that people come up with, not just the most obvious (machines, computers, robots), but everything we do. Everything we invent and innovate is a labour saving device somehow. To stop that would be to give up on the idea of humans changing environment to improve our circumstances. Luddits want to stop progress, be it computers and robots or pesticides and pallets. The parent comment was pointing it out, not complaining about it.

Comment: Re:Why bother? (Score 1) 360

by bondsbw (#48648993) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is an Open Source<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Up To the Job?

Of course Java was ahead of C# before C# was released. C# started out as a Java clone. Java was arguably ahead of C# for about two versions or so, although .NET learned some lessons from Java and implemented some things better (like events, properties, and generics).

C# 3+ leaped ahead by most measures with functional programming concepts such as lambdas and LINQ, as well as duck typing and more. Java has recently improved in many of these areas but I don't yet feel Java's implementation is superior.

On the other hand if you are really into functional programming, look at Scala for the JVM or F# for .NET. Those are both fantastic languages and I would personally choose them assuming my job allowed (which unfortunately it does not).

Comment: here's a real-life case to explain criminal intent (Score 3, Informative) 167

by raymorris (#48648341) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

I'll try explaining it the other way around, with a real-life case. There have been several cases that fit this pattern.

A cop wants to bust a bad guy. That cop gets his wife, a teacher, to pretend to be the DA and tell the bad guy he's authorized to do $crime. Cop busts the bad guy.

In court, bad guy says "the DA said I could ... at least, I thought she was the DA. The real DA replies "I never said a word to the guy. Some teacher said it was authorized, but she has no authority to authorize anything."

In such case, the courts have consistently held that the defendant is not guilty, because they THOUGHT that their actions were authorized and therefore lawful.*

So you see it doesn't matter if the person "authorizing" it is really a cop, a teacher, or a DA. What matters is what the defendant BELIEVES - whether they are trying to commit an act that is criminal or they are trying to aid law enforcement. The legal term is "mens rea", which means "guilty mind",'also known as "criminal intent ".

You are free to think that the courts should have done the opposite and found the person guilty when the "DA" actually isn't a DA. You can think it's wrong or right, but what actually sends people to prison or not in such cases is their actual belief - did they believe their act was authorized or not. The actual identity of the authorizing party does not matter under law.

* This mention of mistaken belief reminds some people of the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Ignorance of the LAW generally isn't an excuse, but mistake of FACT IS an excuse. "I didn't know poisoning my husband counts as murder" is no good. "The bottle said 'blueberry syrup', so I thought it really was blueberry syrup that I put on his food" is a valid defense. Here we're talking about mistake of fact - the defendant thought the person was (or was not) a proper authority.

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...