Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Talking points? (Score 2) 436

I'm afraid you're equating change with good.

Change is not the equivalent to good. Change is change. The only thing you know about change is that it's not "no change".

Trump is change. It's a big change. You get the possible benefits you've listed out. And you'll also get a raving lunatic on an ego trip. That's a marked change from the past 24-28 years.

But is it a good change? Because a big change can mean really good. And it can mean really bad. And since we're a little bad right now, really good would net us good, but really bad nets really, really bad.

Are the benefits of Trump's "big changes" worth the risk? That's for you to decide I guess.

Comment Re:"there was no acknowledgment that ..." (Score 4, Insightful) 252

Initially, it was a success. People used it. There weren't a lot of people on it because of their invite-only policy, but its feature set sounded much more promising than Facebook.

The forced-integration with every other service, combined with the real name policy soured practically everybody. The nail in the coffin was when they started killing their services, irrespective of popularity *ahem* Reader *ahem*. A lot of people stopped using a good chunk of Google's services at that point.

Comment Re:Give me battery or give me death (Score 1) 134

Part of the problem with a light laptop is that if you've got it on your lap or some other soft or uneven surface, when you start typing, the laptop starts swaying. I don't know the exact weight where it gets to the point of being unusable, but even small fluctuations will subtly frustrate people.

There may be other problems, but until they can solve this via engineering or design (without increasing weight), there will continue to be such a thing as "too light."

Comment Re:The statement (Score 2, Insightful) 351

Which is all good and fine from a technical standpoint. But look at the status bar fiasco. What was their response to that again? Oh, right, it can be brought back via a plugin. So do they want to move features into plugins or integrate plugins into the core code? Which is it, guys?

It's either blatant hypocrisy or there's some serious cognative dissonance going on inside Mozilla. Yeah, they're probably doing this to make money, but this one move simply invalidates all of their prior excuses for removing features people like and use.

Comment Re:Easier to learn != easier to use (Score 1) 382

For the mass of getters and setters, it's a matter of having a good IDE that'll auto-generate those for you. Remember that discussion on IDE's? Good ones do more than autocomplete. They also generate boilerplate.

Now, it's certainly true that needing all this boilerplate completely suck, and a good IDE only makes it suck just a bit less.

Then again, you can just make everything public. And, you can even make everything static. It's not like you're forced into the OO paradigm.

I'll see your type erasure and raise you operator overloading. Operator overloading is bad. Really bad. Javascript bad. Java's one instance of an overloaded operator, the '+' operator, is the one instance of really bad language design. So are the arrays, which are a hybrid of primitive and object.

Comment Re:language is OK, programmers are terrible (Score 3, Insightful) 382

Any programming language could have stumbled into that phenomena. It just happened to be Java.

If you threw a bunch of shitty programmers at something simple but low-level like C or complicated but high level like Haskell, these same programmers would turn out software that would completely fail to work. Java, by protecting the programmer from the internals of a system (memory management, pointer vs. value etc.), yet still being simple to write in, lowered the bar significantly for entry into programming as a profession. Anybody can write in Java because it's procedural and easy to think in, and most of the heavy lifting is done for them and it's a matter of stringing together the right libraries.

You're right that it could've been another language besides Java, but said language would've had to have had the same intrinsic qualities as Java. I guess it could be worse and the defacto industry standard language could've gone to C#.

It's both good and bad. As programmers, it makes our day-to-day job of writing and maintaining software easier. It also makes being a programmer easier, which is bad because shitty programmers will turn out shitty software, and will do it for cheap. It devalues our profession precisely because managers know they can hire shitty programmers that will churn out a working product. And by the time any maintenance is needed on it, neither they nor the original programmers would be around to deal with the mess, so it doesn't matter.

Comment Re:Scary side of US (Score 1) 649

You're getting yourself confused. You think we're living in an enlighteend society. Reality is, we're not that much more advanced than the apes and monkeys that we evolved out of. Humans are still animals, and just because we're a little more resourceful than every other animal doesn't make us terribly more enlightened as a species.

You also mistake thinking the U.S. is a first world country. We're not. Taking all things into consideration, we're at best, on the border between the first and third worlds. The only reason we're even included among our more civilized peers is because we have a really powerful military and a lot of natural resources that remain untapped. Europe and Asia have had a 25,000-year head start in resource use over North America, and that is the only reason why the U.S. is as influential in the world stage as it currently is.

We're a young country, barely in our adolescence. We had a great start (freedoms, rights, equality, etc.) but we need to mature into those ideals. Give it another thousand years and things will start to get better (if we don't self-destruct first).

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.