Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Can we get an explanation on who gets mod point (Score 1) 1829

I suspect there's a line of code in the "assignModPoints" function that says something like

if(freaks.contains("pudge")) return 0;

I haven't gotten mod points in a long time either, though I suspect in my case that I had turned off the "willing to moderate" option when it existed in the user options, and unrelated to that pudge foed me at a later time.

Comment Re:Can a Hillary supporter step up and explain? (Score 1) 634

Right now, a group of avowed Clinton haters is still trawling through Clinton's emails trying to find some case where she might have accidentally mislabeled an email or sent it to the wrong person. That's how pathetic this is.

You are ignoring the emails where HRC specifically tells her staff to remove the "classified/secret" labels from an email before resending it over an insecure fax machine. Claiming it was an accident is not believable when you admit to violating the law.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Rant: Android namespaces and ids 3

I hate Java, i hate Android development, but i repeat myself. And that's exactly what i hate about them.

In Android, objects have their own namespaces, under R. There's R.class, R.mipmap, R.layout, R.color, R.integer, and many more. So, the namespace of the layout (where you usually add objects) is under R.layout, the image on a button can be under R.mipmap. Nice.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Stupid Code: Using if() to set a value 4

Here's the latest example of something i have seen way too often:

if(getListView().getCount()==checkedItemCount) chk.setChecked(true); else chk.setChecked(false);

What's the point of obfuscating your code with an if()? This isn't conditional. You want to set it to the same boolean value as the evaluated expression. Obviously, the clearest way to write this (without changing names) is:

Comment Re:Does it count as "evidence" (Score 1) 258

That is intriguing. But if those objects didn't fit the hypothesis, they would have changed the hypothesis to account for it.

I'm not trying to pour cold water on this - the Nice model does work well with five giant planets, not four. And the odds are that we have larger objects than Sedna to account for that haven't been found - at least one Mars-sized body is likely. Another giant planet isn't entirely out of the question, although a Jupiter or Saturn-sized object "relatively" nearby seems to have ruled out by current observations.

But it may be that we're seeing the result of many wild theories, and this is the only one that survived the data we have. Future data may disprove it. Still, we have enough oddities in the outer solar system (Kuiper cliff, elongated orbits of some of the dwarf planets) that it's obvious our current theories have some holes in them.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines that have broken down will work perfectly when the repairman arrives.

Working...