Forgot your password?

Comment: Doesn't fix the problem (Score 1) 411

by medv4380 (#47410235) Attached to: Python Bumps Off Java As Top Learning Language
The Local College CS department keeps having an issue because all the lower level classes are in languages like Java. It ends up that by the time they get to Operating Systems they've never had to go though the hell of dealing with memory pointers, and the basics of C. Python is just as bad, and maybe worse because of how it does logical blocks. It's hell trying to get beginners to understand braces and semicolons, but it's like taking candy from a baby when they've been coding for a few years without ever using them. The whining from VB programmers when they encounter C#, Java, C, or C++ is just unending, and the nonsense from Python heavy programmers is much the same. If you learn the basics in C they are just accepted when you have to learn the lower level coding like Operating Systems. Stop teaching the basics on API heavy system just because it's "Easier" to build a server that way. They've beginners, and have no need for them until they've mastered the basics.

Comment: New Meaning to Holes in Condems (Score 1) 301

by medv4380 (#47409643) Attached to: Wireless Contraception
As far back as I can remember there has always been fear or concern about a guy who wants to knock up a girl poking holes in the condom, or a girl who wants to get pregnant poking holes in the condom. Now with this chip you have a form of birth control that poking holes is as simple as finding the frequency it's on to turn it off. Now instead of worry that your partner screwing with you now you have to worry about a third party. Neighbor that doesn't believe in birth control builds a device to turn yours off. Parents tired of waiting for grandchildren buy said device. The list goes on and on. At least with condoms and the pill I just have to trust my partner, and maybe if I don't do a visual inspection. This is as bad of an idea as people who listen to others about what makes good lubes for condoms when they get told an oil based lube is good when in reality it's something that would really weaken, and increase the likelihood of it breaking, but in this case they don't have to be telling you lies to get you pregnant. They just have to be malicious enough.

Comment: Bear is believable (Score 1) 198

The general description of Bigfoot matches a large bear standing upright. Which they can do. Horses and Dogs are far less believable to be mistaken for Bigfoot, but possible depending on where they were found. A large wolf in the Himalayas might be when visibility is low. But I can't see how someone could mistake a Horse as Bigfoot. Even in extreme conditions.

Comment: Re:I think it's fine (Score 1) 219

by medv4380 (#47354687) Attached to: Facebook's Emotion Experiment: Too Far, Or Social Network Norm?
Facebook conducts human experiment without informed consent, and no way to opt-out on a study who's goal was to screw with your emotions - screw Facebook.

Soda companies conduce human experiments with informed consent of their focus groups who had the option to opt-out to figure out how to better sell their product to you - no problem found.

It's a subtle, but important difference.

Comment: Re:more interessting,.. (Score 1) 219

by medv4380 (#47352851) Attached to: Facebook's Emotion Experiment: Too Far, Or Social Network Norm?
There is a big difference between data mining and human experiment. Just collecting the information to see if anything correlates isn't even worthy of an experiment, and is barely research. Attempting to change how people perceive the world to change there behavior is a human experiment, and that is exactly what they did.

Comment: Re:more interessting,.. (Score 1) 219

by medv4380 (#47351361) Attached to: Facebook's Emotion Experiment: Too Far, Or Social Network Norm?
The line is at Informed Consent. Facebook's insertion of "research" in the TOS does not constitute Informed Consent. If they wish to conduct research on people they're going to have to get an IRB breathing down their necks like the rest of us. No IRB = No Human Research Studies. If they had done the study with the context of only showing negative or positive information about their spouse to see if there was a correlation to the couple staying together that could constitute actual harm.

Comment: Re:I just dont get it (Score 1) 646

by medv4380 (#47267511) Attached to: Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks
Only need to read his paranoid fallacy coupled with " i cant back it up with facts just yet but". He's concluded that they must not really be offended because no real native american would be offended. He's a paranoid delusional nutcase who would accuse you of being paid off if you didn't agree with him.

Comment: Re:Can a company patent it? (Score 1) 207

by medv4380 (#47258389) Attached to: Century-Old Drug Reverses Signs of Autism In Mice
Given that the Adrenal Cortex is responsible for the stress response it probably works to combat autism stress by slightly damaging the gland responsible for over stressing. And only a small portion of that 50% actually need any life long treatment for the damage which does exist. So your "toasted" adrenals is a bit of an overstatement. Finally, Autism is pretty much life threatening in that they have much shorter life expectancy, and a far lower quality of life.

Comment: Re:just label ISP's as common carriers already (Score 2) 190

by medv4380 (#47257289) Attached to: U.S. Democrats Propose Legislation To Ban Internet Fast Lanes
Basically. It would mean they could be regulated. The "Fit Willing and Able" part of being a common carrier would require them to upgrade as the regulations demanded. There is only one argument I see as valid against making ISP's common carriers, and that the resulting legal mess might make things chaotic for a few years, or even a decade. Too many legal/court things have been done under Information Services that changing would give a lot of lawyers a lot of money.

Comment: Anti Cheat Maybe (Score 2) 125

by medv4380 (#47123885) Attached to: Imparting Malware Resistance With a Randomizing Compiler
It would probably cause more problems than it's worth, but it might be able to render some form of cheating worthless. If each program had a different layout then knowing what address you needed to hook into to cheat could be a problem. I don't see how it could cause more problems than anti-cheat software already does.

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN