Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Large data sets (Score 1) 191

by tepples (#48617253) Attached to: New AP Course, "Computer Science Principles," Aims To Make CS More Accessible

What do you really need a computer for that wasn't achieved by teacher and books?

The ability to apply an algorithm to larger sets of data than can be done in reasonable time through pencil-and-paper calculation. Of course, you can teach computer science without the aid of a computer, as the late Dr. Dijkstra pointed out, but that happens not to be in fashion.

Comment: Because some cities' public transit sucks (Score 1) 576

by tepples (#48616339) Attached to: Economists Say Newest AI Technology Destroys More Jobs Than It Creates

So how come MANY people drive to their destination even though they have perfectly good public transport as an option?

Because in practice, it is not as "perfectly good" as you claim. No service at night or on Sunday, no eating or drinking, no space for large cargo, having to wait an hour for the next bus no matter how quick your business in the destination is, etc. (Source:

Comment: Re:Yawn (Score 1) 54

by tepples (#48613241) Attached to: Godot Engine Reaches 1.0, First Stable Release

Why don't they 1-index then?

Because they forget to, and because all the algorithms and data structures that they learned elsewhere, such as heap priority queues, have to have their logic changed between 0- and 1-indexing and between arrays that do and do not allow nil to be an element. For example, any SQL database will produce NULL values in the result of a LEFT JOIN statement, but in the iterator protocol used by Lua's for statement, nil is the terminator.

Are they that stupid?

Some people would interpret this question as carrying a hidden assumption that even if a language's design is flawed, a programmer can be just as productive in it as in any other language. If you are not trying to imply that, then yes, programmers are fallible, and a language design can help a programmer produce a correct program more quickly by protecting the programmer from his own mistakes. See, for example, widely cited accusations leveled at PHP. But if you are trying to imply that, then why not just have everybody program in assembly language?

Comment: Re:The video game crash of 1983 (Score 1) 178

by tepples (#48613075) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

Nothing that you've said here is an accurate reflection of why that crash happened. Lockout wasn't even remotely a factor.

Then please help me understand why the abundance of low-quality shovelware was either A. unrelated to lack of lockout or B. not a factor in the crash.

So end users were faced with a choice between VCD/SVCD, which has no DRM and no major titles, and DVD, which has DRM and major titles.

And that was good for consumers how?

Because DRM gives consumers access to view the movie at home, as opposed to having to wait years to see it again in theaters if it ever comes back to theaters.

Comment: Re:Enough customers do in fact tolerate DRM (Score 1) 178

by tepples (#48613051) Attached to: Apple Wins iTunes DRM Case

DRM is good for consumers because it ensures that studios will be willing to publish more than zero desirable works in a format.

studios _have_ to be willing to publish in a format that people will use.

there are many people willing to buy copies of works in a DRM format

True, but that isn't an argument for how DRM can be good for consumers.

Which brings me back to the original assertion: DRM allows studios to make works available to those members of the public who accept DRM that the studios would be unwilling to make available to anyone without DRM. If the choice were between DRM home video and requiring the public to wait seven years for a repeat theatrical screening, how would the latter "be good for consumers"?

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton