Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:1..2..3 before SJW (Score 1) 781

by martas (#48200065) Attached to: NPR: '80s Ads Are Responsible For the Lack of Women Coders

You say that men who are mean to women chase them off. Then you say men who are nice to women chase them off. And I'm pretty sure you would say that men ignoring women would chase them off. SO WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU SUGGEST?

How about treating women like you treat everyone else, so that they feel like people instead of walking tits?

(And no, I'm not an SJW, I'm a fat hairy nerd.)


'Microsoft Lumia' Will Replace the Nokia Brand 150

Posted by timothy
from the not-many-years-from-dominance dept.
jones_supa writes The last emblems of Nokia are being removed from Microsoft products. "Microsoft Lumia" is the new brand name that takes their place. The name change follows a slow transition from over to Microsoft's new mobile site, and Nokia France will be the first of many countries that adopt "Microsoft Lumia" for its Facebook, Twitter, and other social media accounts. Microsoft has confirmed to The Verge that other countries will follow the rebranding steps in the coming weeks. Nokia itself continues as a reborn company focusing on mapping and network infrastructure services.

Comment: Re:Shash-job-vertisement (Score 1) 205

by martas (#48177669) Attached to: The One App You Need On Your Resume If You Want a Job At Google

That being said, R is also very slow. For one project, I used R and ended up having to use a supercomputer (I only needed a few hundred Opertons out of the 4096 available) to get all the work done in time. For a followup project, I rewrote it in C++ and reran all the same stuff in the same period on a Core 2 Duo. R is really that slow.

How experienced are you with R? I ask because, while of course C++ will always be faster than R, such an enormous difference sounds like it might be due to doing things very suboptimally in R. It's really easy to have orders of magnitude difference in performance in R depending on how you do things. Of course that's possible in C++ too, but the difference is that most people who understand algorithms and architecture abstractly can probably write fairly fast code in C++ without too much familiarity with the language, whereas R, by virtue of being so high level, gives you some seemingly equivalent ways of doing things that are under the hood worlds apart.

Comment: Re:They'll have rights (Score 1) 385

by martas (#48099363) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court
1) Animals already have something resembling rights, in the form of animal cruelty laws; the question here is whether those rights should be expanded to include some of the things guaranteed to humans. 2) Plenty of humans (children, or, as someone else pointed out, the handicapped) can't hold down jobs or feed themselves. Chimps and dolphins, on the other hand, typically are able to feed themselves. So what you're saying is, chimps and dolphins should have more rights than children and the disabled?

Comment: Re:just dont (Score 1) 208

by martas (#48090501) Attached to: Studies Conclude Hands-Free-calling and Apple Siri Distract Drivers

Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.

Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.

In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.

Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.

What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.

I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.

That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.

Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.

Comment: Re:just dont (Score 1) 208

by martas (#48086159) Attached to: Studies Conclude Hands-Free-calling and Apple Siri Distract Drivers
Holy bad math batman! You are making a quantitative comparison without actually having quantities. Suppose the average phone call/text message saves 1 mile of driving; the average chance of an accident per 1 mile driven is 1 in 100,000; and the average chance of accident due to taking a call/reading a text is 1 in 10,000. Then by answering a call, one increases the chances of an accident 10x. I have no idea how close to reality those numbers are, but neither do you.

Comment: Re:About fucking time. (Score 1) 85

by martas (#48032349) Attached to: Hong Kong Protesters Use Mesh Networks To Organize
Ah, interesting.

After power was turned back on, I, and a lot of other people, went out and bought a hand-cranked USB charger(also doubles as a flashlight and radio, a handy device to be sure). It doesn't take that much energy to power a cell phone.

Unfortunately, I think a significant level of such individual disaster-preparedness will always be the exception, not the rule.

As for the tower issue, the towers where I was at(Tsukuba, which is about halfway between Tokyo and Fukushima) all kept power even after the quake but since so many people were using their phones to either call people or check the news it was almost impossible to get through(the bandwidth of the tower may have very well been degraded as well). A mesh network *might* have been useful there, but it would have had to have enough density to work.

I agree with your hesitation there -- in that scenario, it seems like the presence of a mesh network might make the congestion problem worse.

Comment: Re:About fucking time. (Score 3, Interesting) 85

by martas (#48031869) Attached to: Hong Kong Protesters Use Mesh Networks To Organize
The wireless networking research community has been working on mesh/ad-hoc networks for over a decade, citing communication in disaster areas as (one of the) main applications. At some point some people started to sort of laugh at it ("oh look, another mesh networking paper!"), because despite all the research it didn't seem to get any closer to reality. My guess would be that the reason why we're seeing it finally being used is because in order to be feasible, you need the density of devices to be above a certain threshold, which means a) it was never going to work in the pre-smartphone era -- with smartphones, you can just download an app to do it, but otherwise you'd pretty much need to spend major $$ to get the necessary number of dedicated devices out there, or else there needs to be wide-scale agreement to implement a specific protocol on all new devices, which was never going to happen because it's not a selling point, b) it won't really work in major natural disasters, because, well in order to maintain the density of devices, a large number of people need to have continuous access to power, which is unlikely if a disaster is so severe that communication infrastructure is offline (I imagine celltowers are less fragile than power lines).

Comment: Re:Not sure about this. (Score 1) 195

by martas (#48031403) Attached to: CEO of Spyware Maker Arrested For Enabling Stalkers
There is of course a fairly high bar for deciding whether something is intended to be used to break the law or not. Often (though not always), emphasizing legal uses in the branding and advertising of an item is sufficient to ensure the bar isn't reached. There is a large amount of legal content available as torrents, and these are used in advertising (e.g.).

Also, the existence of grey areas doesn't invalidate the general principle. RANDOM PROFANE OUTBURST!

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.