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


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:couldn't hurt (Score 3, Insightful) 173

we moved on from hieroglyphs, we dont need to be going back to them

We moved on from hieroglyphs since writing by hand was so tedious anyone bothering could be assumed to be serious in unclear cases. Since writing and sending messages has moved on to an everyday form of personal communication, it also requires a concise way to express tone and emotion a non-professional writer can manage. And in practice that means some form of smileys, so we can as well optimize them.

Technology exists to serve people's needs, after all.

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 1) 249

And seriously, I simply cannot comprehend this logic. The (incredibly common) logic used by people like you is based on the following premises:

No, it's based on the idea that women are unreliable, immoral and not really sapient and will thus throw their lover under the bus the second it seems profitable, even if the long-term results are negative.

The "logic" is incomprehensible because society has advanced to the point where saying the main premise out loud is frowned upon. But people can read between lines, so as long as sexism will exist in any form it will always resurface. Dehumanization and discrimination are the two sides of the same ugly thing, after all.

Comment Re:No, obviously (Score 1) 249

A strong man's fist is a deadly weapon. You're telling me a fighter waving his fist in your face will traumatize you equally compared to a gun under your nose?

Why wouldn't it? Guns have no magical powers fists lack that cause the (mental) trauma. It's the violence that does, and as you yourself noted, fists are all you need for that.

Comment Re:I've had this as a plug-in. (Score 2) 170

I'm betting Google's own dancing monkeys will be as annoying as ever.

Do they need to be? They're no longer competing with a zillion other animations to be the most attention-grapping thing around. The evolutionary arms race is over, so the optimal ad is one that the user notices but isn't annoyed by - after all, developing and installing ad blockers is hard work which people aren't going to do without reason, and besides, who wants to have their brand associated with annoyance if that's not required to be noticed?

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. Google has both the means and motive to turn online ads from an accursed scourge to reasonable suggestions you might be willing to take. Time will tell if they'll also have the wisdom to do so.

Comment Re:Waste Disposal (Score 1) 317

Bullshit. I think we're more likely to see a revolution with the current approach. For example, your willingness to destroy industries because you don't think their wages are high enough.

I agree that current approach will lead to ruin. I simply disagree on how to avoid it. Specifically, I'd enact an unconditional and irremovable citizen wage sufficient to live and function in modern society (food, home, water, electricity, car where it's necessary or public transit where it's sufficient, and Internet connection) and then repeal everything except safety regulations (and even those could be at least considerably eased after people got used to the fact that they can afford to say no). This would simultaneously kill industries that relied on exploiting desperate people, guarantee a level of domestic demand, allow pruning of bureaucracy on both public and private sectors and give companies total flexibility in hiring and firing without crushing anyone underfoot while at it.

Basically, ensure there's one armor-plated ox who can fight off the bears, and everyone will likely be better off.

Why do you think the Gilded Age proves your point? That period was the transition from former colonies to superpower. They must have been doing a lot of things right.

Right? That depends. Do you value superpower status more than not having lots of poverty? I don't, so I think Gilded Age sucked.

The classic "we didn't want those jobs anyway!" response. If they're paying someone to do something, then there's some value to it. I suggest letting it going on rather than burning another hole in the economy and society.

Just like there's an upper bound an employer is willing to pay to get job X done, there's also a lower bound to what dire consequences - such as what level of poverty - a potential employee is willing to suffer to avoid doing X. This means that a society where X gets done has some positive utility for the employer and negative utility for the employee compared to one where it won't. The total utility of doing X dips into negative if the upper bound is low, because the negative utility to the employee of doing the job has fixed components, for example wasting their limited time to do things they don't care about.

In other words, your desire to have a cheap Big Mac isn't more important than the pain of someone who just barely prefers flipping them to homelessness.

Comment Re:jobs? (Score 1) 317

hmmm what would you get if you had a scripted physics engine?

You get your average shooter or adventure game, where a mini-nuke will absolutely refuse to do any kind of damage against a perfectly ordinary-looking door. Or, more correctly, the door cannot react except for things it's specifically scripted to react to. By contrast, to a physics engine that door is not a door but a "damageable" and thus the nuke can tell it to suffer damage (or apply force with more advanced engines), as can a stick of dynamite or the player's foot.

Comment Re:Waste Disposal (Score 1) 317

It only "suggests" that if you ignore the obvious like widespread disincentives to employ people in the developed world.

Which were put in place to keep the developed world from falling into a general revolution. Which will simply start again if you remove them.

Or in other words, society made the problem in the first place in part by shutting down said industry. If they didn't do that, then not only would they have those workers, they'd have others employed to provide goods and services for those workers.

Right, so did that actually happen before those regulations were put in place? Why do you Lazy-Fairy fanbois keep ignoring history?

Furthermore, if an industry becomes unprofitable simply because they have to actually pay their employees a decent wage, it seems to me that it wasn't producing any value to begin with. Why should I have to subsidize it, either through food stamps for its employees or through amed might necessary to keep them from revolting out of despair?

Comment Re:jobs? (Score 1) 317

Sorry you can't land one with your BS in Literary History of Transgendered Elves of Valinor.

As it happens, "hard" subjects are easier to automate than "soft" ones. That's why our games have physics engines but stories are scripted. And on top of that, Tolkien's writings specifically - which are mostly just histories of Middle-Earth - have made around $5 billion from the LotR and Hobbit movie trilogies alone.

Comment Re:i think it shows trends in GitHub's demographic (Score 1) 132

A side comment here: the "= 0" seems bizarre. Back when it was created the mantra was to avoid new keywords [at any cost]. Wouldn't "virtual void fnc() pure;" or "pure virtual void fnc();" be easier to grasp?

How about "unimplemented"? Why try to come up with witty synonyms when there's a perfectly accurate word in the English language already? Especially since "pure" already has a completely different meaning in relation to functions: it's a function that has no side effects and returns a value that depends only on the parameters.

By the same token, "virtual" is less clear than "overridable".

My notion is that any public class hierarchy that allows fncX4 from class X to show up in class Z without an explicit definition in Z violates encapsulation.

Suppose W is a private member of X. Suppose the author of W changes some public function W.f which X relies on so that another function X.g develops a bug. Has encapsulation been violated? Remember that any complete and unambigious definition of W.f is itself already an implementation.

If your code references any outside code in any way, it can be broken by unexpected changes in that outside code. That loss of control is the price you pay for not coding everything yourself. It's not avoidable by any means whatsoever.

However, it seems like your specific complaint could be solved with a simple addition of syntactic sugar: "private X someName (exports: public: fncX1, fncX2, fncX3)" which would make compiler generate the corresponding proxy functions for you (or better yet, just make Z.fncX1 be a synonym for Z.someName.fncX1 for all purposes except checking for access permission).

Comment Re:Would you guys be as poutraged for a Klansman? (Score 1) 187

Why the First Amendment, of course.

Eh? That needs explaining.

From the very previous sentence: "What gives us the right to extend its legal definition from what a religion - or a set of religions - says marriage should be?"

Notice the word "legal" there? The issue is not whether you recognize same-sex marriage as valid, the issue is whether the law does. And the law is subject to First Amendment, which specifically excludes religious law.

The state's power to do what? Tell people that they can't willy nilly change the meanings of words?

To have anything whatsoever to do with marriage. Specifically, to recognize it as affecting one's legal status in any way. The state can't do that without having a legal definition of marriage (because otherwise how can it tell if you're married or not?), and it can't simply leave that up to your church's word because that would be making a law "respecting an establishment of religion", which the First Amendment forbids.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

This should create the head of steam required to get some legislation passed to make companies and specific executives SUFFER if they screw up their data security. Ultimately that means if an executive is advised that a system is insecure, fails to act and it gets hacked, the executive needs to personally liable, with a small taste of prison. It happening once is all that is required....

That will simply mean executives make darn sure no one will dare give them such advice.

No, what's required is understanding that handling identities is a specialized task with the consequences of failure being a matter of life and death. In other words, it needs mandatory insurance - anyone's name gets out, they get paid massive mandatory damages sufficient to start a new life if they so choose regardless of whether they actually come to any harm, and the insurance company then handles punishing the culprit by trying to recover their money either through the courts or through higher rates.

Comment Re:Finally! (Score 1) 113

Ignoring the political aspect for a moment, isn't this a simple TOS violation? Twitter offer a feature (deleting tweets) and these guys are using their API access to subvert it. It's hardly surprising that they were blocked.

Twitter is claiming they have a feature - taking back something after it has been published on the Internet - which they have no way of delivering. Politwoops highlighted this fact. So no, it's not surprising they got blocked.

Going back to the politics, are you arguing that Twitter should remove the delete button from its service? That would be fine of course, I'm just asking if you think that is what they should do, or if you think it should be up to third party services to selectively archive everything certain people of interest say and then change their mind about.

Which is more important, Twitter's ability to deliver shareholder value or the public's ability to know what their elected representatives actually believe, rather than whatever PRotoshopped image they wish to project? Gee, I wonder.