Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

+ - RIP DDJ->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Dr. Dobb's — long time icon of programming magazines — "sunsets" at the end of the year. Younger people may not care, but for the hard core old guys, it marks the end of a world where broad knowledge of computers and being willing to create solutions instead of reuse them was valuable."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Really... (Score 4, Insightful) 190

> Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'."

Uh huh... the 2nd amendment says I have the right to defend myself. That means I can own guns to defend myself when I'm being attacked... PHYSICALLY.

The proper analogy is that I have the right to secure my computer systems from being hacked by malcontents or governments (or both).

It does not give me the right to go over to the local printing press and blow them up if they're xeroxing my naked selfies. That's not defense, that's just vandalism.

Good lord can this world get any dumber...

Comment: WELL DUH! (Score 2) 282

by the_skywise (#48340519) Attached to: When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem

This is one of the earliest recognized phenomena in historical literature. It's evidenced here every frackin' day!

Ego trumps reality in arguments every time because it's more important to WIN then to be RIGHT. That's why bluffing is so important in poker.

There's a larger issue here in the examples given though - There's NO SCIENTIFIC RESOLUTION FOR THEM - They're moral and ethical arguments with subjective values. One side will argue that closing down coal plants will cost jobs and increase the cost of energy which will destroy the economy vs the other side arguing that carbon pollution from coal will destroy the environment. Both are hyperbolic but where you fall on the spectrum of "what matters" will determine how you argue, regardless of the "facts". Same with gun control - One argues that restriction of gun rights causes more crime while the other argues that more guns equal more gun crime. Both are objectively scientific facts but which fact trumps the other?

And the report says it's because people ignore science? I think that says more about the quality of the report and the reporters than the people being reported on.


by the_skywise (#48328305) Attached to: French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children

I'm blind now!

Oh wait... No I'm not...

I had a pile of viewmaster reels and a viewer that I'd spend hours looking at when I was between 4-6 and I made my own 3D pictures and posters using red/blue markers as a pre-teen.

I'll agree that back to back marathon viewings of 3D content probably isn't good but I think that's just basic common sense and just as bad as watching back to back marathon viewings of 2D content... which I also did as a child on Saturday Mornings... :/

Comment: Re:Summary doesn't support headline (Score 2) 306

by the_skywise (#48255371) Attached to: We Are All Confident Idiots

Think about it. Even for those of us who are smart enough to qualify our answers, we'll STILL say we're right even without a majority of the information needed to make a valid decision because we "know" better because usually, with experience, we're right. (But we're not really, we're just lucky) Sure, there's exceptions like heart surgery and rocket launches where you want to make a "go" decision with close to 100% accuracy as possible (but generally we still don't even get that close) but the great majority of decisions you'll make in life can't be made with that much accuracy. Should I marry this person, should I start this company, should I invest in this company, where should I concentrate my efforts to have a fulfilling life? By natural instinct you HAVE to develop an inner monologue and gut reaction to events and you have to do it without sufficient information to make that decision because you will never have the time or ability to GET that information before the decision must be made.

Don't believe me? How about Colin Powell?
"Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired. Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut.”

Comment: Actually it makes a certain amount of sense (Score 3, Insightful) 306

by the_skywise (#48255077) Attached to: We Are All Confident Idiots

Incompetence generally isn't fatal in today's society.

So long as you can back it up with deflection ("Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM") which is a basic two year old skill ("I didna take da cookie!") you're not going to lose your position until you reach the level of GROSS incompetence and maybe not even then.

The real problem is when you have skilled people who make mistakes, KNOW they make mistakes and qualify their answers because they know they may not be right. They're overridden by these same people that never accept failure but still give the wrong answers.

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind. -- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875