Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Or just practicing for an actual job (Score 1) 320

by jason.sweet (#48368831) Attached to: Duke: No Mercy For CS 201 Cheaters Who Don't Turn Selves In By Wednesday
If you could have coded it from scratch, you knew how to weed out all the crap and pick the correct example. You also knew enough to realize that the example was an implementation simplified enough to fit in a web page. And, as a result, you enhanced the example to make it robust enough for production use. You did do that, didn't you?

Comment: Sigh! (Score 3, Insightful) 173

by jason.sweet (#48207141) Attached to: Google Announces Inbox, a New Take On Email Organization

Please don't tell me you are one of those MORONS who relies on software for real-time instructions

Since this is slashdot, I shouldn't have to remind you of the things in the modern world that depends on real-time instructions from software. But I will say this: If software running on 1960's technology could get humans to the moon and back, it is not unreasonable for me to expect my phone to tell me how to get to ikea.

Comment: Re:In the olden days... (Score 1) 189

by jason.sweet (#47566619) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax

Why do so many people misspell and mispronounce that?

The better question is "Why do you care?" I submit a "get off my lawn" rant without proofreading, and the best you can do is criticize my spelling of the name of a crappy burger joint. Your internet-foo is weak.
As far as I'm concerned, MacDonalds is the one who doesn't know how to spell MacDonalds.

Comment: In the olden days... (Score 1) 189

by jason.sweet (#47566231) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax
In the olden days, as my children like to call them, we learned that you only use an encyclopedia. For those too young to remember, and encyclopedia is a set of articles about stuff, like Wikipedia. It came in a large set of books. It was edited by a much smaller, and, we assume, more educated set of people than Wikipedia. But even so, we recognized that a small summary article could not sufficiently convey the complexity and nuances of the subjects we were eager to study. We also understood, that such a large volume of knowledge was likely to contain oversimplification and plain errors. That is why the articles included a bibliography of sources, so we could find those books and expand our knowledge more completely and accurately. Somewhere along the line, we grew lazy. We got used to the instant gratification of the internet. Somewhere along the line we decided it was too much trouble to GET OUR HEAD OUT OF OUR ASSES AND READ A FUCKING BOOK.
Sorry
This isn't about Wikipedia being unreliable. It's about authors being unreliable. Check your fucking sources, or get a job at MacDonalds.

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...