Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Fire danger (Score 2) 109 109

by magarity (#50015103) Attached to: My relationship to 4th of July noise:

I like fireworks as much as anyone and I don't mind if someones takes his chances with blowing his own hand off because he's had a few too many Bud Lights. What I mind is when it hasn't rained in months and all the fire danger alerts are Ultra Violet level but people are still shooting off sparkly rockets. Have a little sense, people!

Programming

To Learn (Or Not Learn) JQuery 103 103

Posted by samzenpus
from the that-is-the-question dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes: jQuery isn't without its controversies, and some developers distrust its use in larger projects because (some say) it ultimately leads to breakage-prone code that's harder to maintain. But given its prevalence, jQuery is probably essential to know, but what are the most important elements to learn in order to become adept-enough at it? Chaining commands, understanding when the document is finished loading (and how to write code that safely accesses elements only after said loading), and learning CSS selectors are all key. The harder part is picking up jQuery's quirks and tricks, of which there are many... but is it worth studying to the point where you know every possible eccentricity?

Comment: Re:No shit ... (Score 1) 124 124

by lgw (#50014021) Attached to: New Study Accuses Google of Anti-competitive Search Behavior

First thing I do with a new browser is change my default search to DuckDuckGo. I wish I could say I was entirely living a Google-free life, but I do watch YouTube. Is there some way to do that without any Google/DoubleClick tracking cookies - anyone know? I'd be far happier with no Google account of any kind to tie anything to.

But, sadly, most people still give their personal details to Google in particular to sell, and that means if you're trying to launch a new product, you have to care about Google search results.

Comment: Re:Well, well, well. (Score 1) 292 292

by lgw (#50010615) Attached to: A Failure For SpaceX: Falcon 9 Explodes During Ascension

What does "given a pass" mean? I'm sure we'll hear what went wrong, and what they're changing to prevent it, before they launch again, just as with the failed landings. And of course we don't know what the failure rate is yet - my point was that "cheap" will make a higher failure rate acceptable for a lot of payloads. Of course I'd hope that as their process matures they'd continue improving both cost and reliability, but realistically it will take hundreds of launches to have a chance of both "good" and "cheap".

Comment: Re:Well, well, well. (Score 1) 292 292

by lgw (#50010569) Attached to: A Failure For SpaceX: Falcon 9 Explodes During Ascension

If they get even 10 re-uses, It will be remarkable, and allow much cheaper prices to orbit. I don't know what SpaceX expects in the next decade, but I don't expect them to reach their "!0%" pricing or a 1% failure rate that quickly: process refinement takes serious time. They don't need to to become a new, appealing alternative for launch.

Comment: Re:Well, well, well. (Score 3, Insightful) 292 292

by lgw (#50008619) Attached to: A Failure For SpaceX: Falcon 9 Explodes During Ascension

Maybe I don't understand your point? What's being "rationalized" here? Or are you unwilling to participate in honest discussion here? I rather suspect you're just trolling.

You seem to be saying that it's unfair that /.er's don't hold SpaceX to the same standards of NASA? Of course not, that was never the goal, never the point, and no reasonable person ever expected that. SpaceX is cheap - a goal of 10% of NASA's launch costs. There will of course be trade-offs. That's as expected, and it's still a good thing.

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers

Working...