Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.


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:Breaking news! (Score 1) 148

by ljw1004 (#49132943) Attached to: Artificial Intelligence Bests Humans At Classic Arcade Games

The article shows a picture of Breakout, and tends to focus on the wrong things entirely... especially the title, trumping that "computers can beat humans". It's fairly impressive that computers can learn the rules of a simple videogame on their own and perform well, but beating humans is not exactly an apples to apples comparison, because while we can formulate strategies to maximize points, we're also prone to making simple mistakes due to our much poorer reflexes and coordination.

Exactly. The article talks about the "advanced strategy" of tunneling a hole through to bounce the ball of the back wall. But that's only a useful strategy to make up for someone who doesn't have the reflexes to bounce the ball with their paddle, or can't be bothered. If the program had good reflexes and didn't get bored, then tunneling in breakout isn't any advantage.

Comment: Re:oh please. I'm tired of this "diversity" bullsh (Score 3, Insightful) 493

My female colleagues and managers are WITHOUT EXCEPTION great software engineers. I wonder why your workspace is so bad?

It's hard to blame it on "the women" because then you'd have to explain why places like my workspace doesn't suffer. So it must be something else. Any ideas?

Comment: Re:What about the No. 1 reason? (Score 1) 254

Well, that's great, but if the No. 1 reason is that girls just aren't as interested in coding as boys (generally/on average) then how far are you going to get?

If 40% didn't do it for the no.1 reason and 30% didn't do it for the no.2 reason then you'd get 30% more.

Stupid question, stupid answer.

Comment: Re:Is the Libertarian view correct? (Score 1) 265

by ljw1004 (#48972601) Attached to: Don't Sass Your Uber Driver - He's Rating You Too

So your limited experience with something in your limited area trumps the experiences of everybody else everywhere else ?

I've taken 200+ taxis in Northern Italy, Germany, Singapore, Seattle, LA, Vegas, New York, England, Chicago, Vancouver, Scotland, India, SF and Bay area, British Virgin Islands, Vietnam. Of those only 1 has failed to be clean+safe+reliable. (its headlights were out, and we were driving at night).

The earlier poster claimed that "typically taxis are not clean, safe and reliable", in other words there's >50% chance of not finding such a taxi. If so, then the chances of me having had my experiences are 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

So I'm unusually confident that the earlier poster is incorrect.

Comment: Re:Is the Libertarian view correct? (Score 4, Interesting) 265

by ljw1004 (#48962461) Attached to: Don't Sass Your Uber Driver - He's Rating You Too

Here's a typical first-hand report... taxis are neither clean, safe, nor reliable.... It would appear that the Libertarian model is better. Why is the Libertarian view on this particular narrow situation not the correct view?

My experience with taxis has been that they're almost always clean, safe and reliable. I flat out disagree with your "typical" first hand report. The chance of that report being typical and yet not repeated in any of my own many hundreds of taxi rides makes me disbelieve that it's typical.

Your "it would appear" claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're looking at the available evidence through libertarian-tinted spectacles. Please repost when you have some statistically significant comparisons.

Comment: Re:What's more irritating? (Score 1) 252

by ljw1004 (#48929711) Attached to: One In Five Developers Now Works On IoT Projects

What's more irritating? The whole "Internet of Things" craze, or article summaries that presume everyone knows the acronym?

Neither. I agree with the hype about IoT. I think it will be as big a change to society 40 years' time as the Internet has been so far.

Now what is irritating, though, is all the Slashdot posts complaining about IoT...

Comment: Re:How does Microsoft test with USERS? (Score 3, Informative) 378

by ljw1004 (#48906937) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

I can't imagine that Microsoft's own developers are running their own development systems on Windows 8.1 - I wouldn't be surprised if it were a dirty secret within Microsoft that application development takes place on Win7 (and maybe WinXP)

I'm a Microsoft developer. I and most of my colleagues develop on Win8.1. I don't know why your imagination is failing you.

My team does much of our work on VMs running recent builds of VS, and those VMs typically run Win8.1 -- presumably because it has a lower memory footprint than Win7.

As an engineer who actually uses win8.1 for my daily work, the only main UI difference with Win7 is the start screen, and that has negligible impact because I launch apps either by clicking on the taskbar or by pressing Win and then typing by keyboard the name of the app. Exactly the same workflow and same number of keystrokes as before.

Comment: Re:Terrible names (Score 2) 378

by ljw1004 (#48906157) Attached to: Windows 10: Charms Bar Removed, No Start Screen For Desktops

Well the Charms bar is apparently dead so it no longer matters that its name is terrible.

Apple already came out with "Continuity". So Microsoft's "Continuum" sounds pretty similar. You might just have to knuckle down and live with a new term for seamless transitions between phone+tablet and laptop+desktop devices. Of all the terms they could have chosen, "Continu*" don't seem too bad.

The moon is a planet just like the Earth, only it is even deader.