Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Guess who will hate body cams? Criminals (Score 2) 92

Most cop haters think the cops will get the bad deal on body cams. But truth is police misconduct is few and far between and the camera's will now provide evidence on how unruly some suspects can be. It may even provide the cops with evidence to add further charges against a suspect.

Yep. I'll bet the video will help cops 9 times out of 10. BUT that 1 time in 10 is going to be very important to reforming the departments that need reform, stopping abuse, and rebuilding trust with the community.

As an aside, here in Denver we recently had a remarkable case of how self-absorbed a sociopath can be--I think the rest of the country is in for a shock as to the extent that abusive cops will not curb their behavior when being recorded...

Comment Re:LOGIC is not the same thing as MATH (Score 1) 572

By this reasoning any language is math.

Absolutely not. That's just 100% a strawman argument pulled out of your...

You conflating math with language and thus equating all languages to each other.

Nope. I am not.

My point, sir... is that there is a distinction between MATH as a scholastic subject taught in a university and LOGIC as a philosophical pursuit as taught in university or simply practiced in the school of hard knocks of life.

I am discussing math as taught in university, in the math department, by math professors.

My point is self evident.. You have a specific programming language that looks more like math than the others in its syntax? Okay. Good for you. That doesn't mean people coding Java programs are better at it if they mastered some field of higher mathematics or not.

Some of them look more like math than others, and that has nothing to do with my point; in fact it's what confuses many people about this point--they are all math, they are all ways of expressing functions in a specific category of math. And, actually, people who understand the math do have a deeper understanding of coding--doesn't necessarily mean they're better in practice.

The point of the article and my comment upon it is that programming and mathematics are cousins in the same philosophical school but neither one is subordinate to the other. They are related but different.

Yes, I get that. But you are claiming that an entire field of mathematics is "not math", and that is a completely wrong, silly, even, claim.

Comment Re:LOGIC is not the same thing as MATH (Score 1) 572

No it isn't. If I turned in a sheet of lamda calculus code in response to a test question on a math exam, I would get a ZERO.

That would depend entirely on whether or not the subject of that math exam was the lambda calculus. Your quote makes no more sense than saying that if you "turned in a sheet of partial differential equations in response to a test question on a math exam" you would get a zero. Sure you would, if the test question was on a different branch of math, but so what?

That you can have MATH in coding is not the same thing as saying that coding is math.


Every function, every expression, is a formula in the lambda calculus.

Every programming language is isomorphic to the lambda calculus; so the syntax is different, but the underlying operations are the same.

I suspect you did not even read the first paragraph of the linked article, but if you did, you might want to try again, more carefully this time...

Comment Re:Sorry, but some of these "math guys" scare me (Score 1) 572

That person might actually have a chance of writing maintainable code, instead of producing a "class" that's 5,000 lines long with 30 instance variables, and a 7 or 8 methods all marked "static."

Hehe, I read that and thought "a class that's 5,000 lines long, that's not that bad, it's not that uncommon for a complex problem to justify a 10-page class, HOLY MOTHER OF GOD NO THAT'S 100 PAGES WHAT THE HELL!!!"

Comment Re:Wait for it... (Score 4, Informative) 112

So all the user has to do is have zero understanding of the computer, click allow on everything with out thinking, and ignore stuff that is obviously weird and broken? Sounds like this will work against 30% of the population. Add in that it gets you free porn and you got 10% more.

No. For an app from an unidentified developer, there is no "Allow" option presented. You have to know how to bypass that security setting in order to get the app to run, which is the whole point--the kind of users who blindly click "Allow" to everything are unlikely to know how to do that, and so won't be able to run this kind of app.

Comment Re:Wait for it... (Score 1) 112

By default OS X machines come set to allow only Applications from the Mac App Store to run. Most people reduce this security setting to allow applications from "Mac App Store and identified developers" to run.

The default is to allow applications from Mac App Store and identified developers. But you're right about the rest.

Comment Re:There are better ways (Score 1) 575

when i landed in Charles de Gaulle airport, almost the entire staff was apparently on strike. there were a few people milling about doing odd jobs, but no one at debarkation. the French arrivals seemed jaded to it, and the rest of us just shuffled, somewhat confused, through a barren airport and wandered into France without so much as a glance.

When you fly into Marseille, at baggage claim you find a plaque on the wall next to a phone, which translates to "if you have anything to declare, please use this phone to dial extension xxx and request a customs agent". On that trip I returned through Houston, crowded, miserable holding pen with drug-sniffing dogs working the mass of humanity. So what does our paranoia actually get us in terms of a safe society?

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.