Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: Understood (Score 2) 370

Yes .... The idiot who used tabs is broken. Python allows tabs, it doesn't encourage it. Competent programmers don't use tabs unless they are writing a makefile.

I disagree. If one action in a language is always idiotic then it is not the idiot who is at fault, but the language. C lets you run over the end of an array which is awful, but the counterpoint is that it's faster to not do the checks so it ultimately allows a very skilled programmer to write more efficient code. There's a tradeoff .

What's the tradeoff with Python in this case?

The only reason to not use tabs for indenting in fact is because that's the method the python community chose. In other languages, tabs are a much better choice since one tab means semantically one level of indent. The programmer can then choose their optimum viewing conditions by selecting the tab stops they prefer. Tabs are a much better choice, but it's programs like EMACS which ruined he world this way by using the mindlessly crazy two space, 4space, 6 space, tab indent scheme. WTF.

Comment Re:Obvious Hollywood shill is obvious (Score 1) 195

2. A dingy, overpriced, cramped, uncomfortable, smelly struggle to enjoy a film played on poorly maintained projectors in a theater rocking with the sounds of cellphones and conversation, while the usher stands idly by and fails to enforce any order, while you munch stale $20 popcorn.

Try moving out of Dis to a city on this realm. You'll find the cinemas substantially better.

Comment Re:Baloney (Score 1) 285

Why there have beeen tremendous amounts in rendering speeds and all kinds of image processing, but not in the calculation of these GPS coordinates, that is a mystery to me as well.

There has. Unlike with CPUs and GPUs many power saving options are not available. Things like power gating and clock throttling don't work because you are doing the same thing over and over again at the same speed for ever and ever. In terms of general improvement, the power has decreased except you've not seem much of that in phones because people want them to work in built up areas. The extra power budget has been spent on much more expensive multipath processing which can eat up almost arbitrary amounts of power if you do enough of it.

This is why phone GPS units are astoundingly much better than 10 years ago.

Comment Re:I refer you to The Oatmeal. (Score 1) 282

Ha yes I subscribed too.

It's 7.99 a month which then goes up to 8.99 and you have to subscribe and remember to cancel and when you do sign up you have you put up with crap quality an some dumbass proprietary player app which only works on a limited range of platforms AND is just a bit crap. Oh and you have to navigate their bloody awful website.

TPB is so much easier to use.

As is amazon music. Want a song? Give money get a file. The end.

The people literally handing over cash are not the pirates. Why make them wish they were using the pirate bay?

Comment Re:another view (Score 1) 256

Keeping it from the "taxman" is not only financially proper but morally ethical.

Yep, it's totally ethical to benefit from all of the structures that the little people pay for out of their taxes but not contribute at all.

If you don't think taxes are ethical, try moving to the Libertarian Paradise of the Congo. See how enjoyable life without taxation really is.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 701

You wrote unclearly, that's your fault not mine.

So your argument is that small buses, aka vans are always more efficient than large ones. You know, TfL actually has a variety of different buses of different sizes and configurations that they run on different routes, from small, single decker single door ones to the 3 door, twin staircase new routemasters on the high passenger turnover routes.

Seems odd to insist that using a large bus which can frequently hold many passengers is less efficient than using many smaller ones, because your numbers simply don't add up.

The new routemasters get about 7 mpg, which are measured on the actual routes consisting of nothing but town driving. The best cars manage about 40mpg in actual town driving, so about 6x the MPG of a bus. Multiplying by the average occupancy figures means that the bus gets about 2.5x the passenger miles per gallon. It also takes about 1/5 of the space on the road.

On heavier routes, the bus advantage is larger. Thoise routes are of course where traffic is heavier and the larger advantage is more important.

Smaller buses aka vans fall somewhere inbetween and are of course more suitable on less busy routes.

Seriously though I live in a city with a very well functioning bus system and use it regularly. You keep trying to tell me what I use dat to day doesn't exist simply because you have never esperienced it. That's pretty silly even by slashdot standards.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 701

Those bus networks are heavily subsidized and lose money in every case

Half of everything loses money if you take an excessively narrow view of it. The roads lose money because we don't charge for using them. The police force loses money because we don't charge people for use of it. The fire brigade certainly loses money.

And so on and so forth.

But we fund the roads because we understand that having a functioning road network generates money indirectly because it allows for the efficient transportation of goods and people, which is necessary for the running of the economy.

Speaking of having a working road network, how well do you think the already crowded London road network would work if it had to handle an extra 2.5bn car journeys per year on top of the current 1.8bn car journeys per year? How much do you think it would cost to upgrade the road network to handle that, not to mention the parking facilities to handle the extra load?

That's written off as a necessary cost, but it's only necessary because we use buses, which we only do because we need drivers.

We use buses because we need drivers? What?

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 701

It seems to me that you have no experience living somewhere with a functioning bus network and you are trying to insist to someone who (a) does and (b) regularly catches the bus that a functioning bus network can't possibly work.

If your logic doesn't match reality, then it is your logic which is flawed, not reality.

These are inherent problems with buses, they are not a local problem. They are either inefficient or annoying AF, they cannot be both efficient and pleasant because of physics.

Physics says nothing about pleasantness, so that's a bogus argument. Either way, a new routemaster has a seating capacity of about 60 or so, and it's just not that bad if you have a seat. Frankly it's not that bad standing either if the journey isn't too long. Also, sitting in traffic in a car is far from being a pile of laughs. You can't do anything really except watch the road, and you can't simply bail abandoning your car and walking if the congestion is simply too heavy.

Nope. Platooning would erase that advantage,

No, that's utter junk. Firstly platooning doesn't erase the advantage because unlike buses, it doesn't actually exist in any meaningful way at the moment. Secondly it doesn't work because the numbers don't work. A new routemaster is 11.23 meters long and holds 90 passengers at max capacity (average occupancy 17). The average car is about 4.5m long, so the bus is about 2.5 car lengths long. The average car occupancy during commutes is around 1.2. So, even if you bolt the cars nose to tail the cars will still take up 6 times as much room on the road as the bus.

And as it happens, the bus occupancy tends to be higher on busier routes which also have more traffic, so the improvement in traffic flow

ut it is already imaginary because buses perturb traffic. It actually makes every other vehicle that has to deal with it more polluting because it has to go around it,

Not if there's not room, and not if the traffic is heavy. In rush hour, waiting at lights is going to be far more dominant than waiting for a bus to take on or discharge passengers. And having more in buses will reduce the amount of time waiting at lights.

and it damages roads at least an order of magnitude more than cars.

That is the only valid point you have.

It's difficult to imagine a way to make transporting humans on roads less efficient.


It's very, very easy to disprove your point. Go to a city with a functioning bus network, and stand at a busy road during rush hour. Count the number of people going by on the road per second. Now go back and amend your figures replacing the counts from every bus with the average car result. You will see a drastic drop in the carrying capacity of the road.

Comment Re:It makes sense. (Score 1) 701

Not in my life. They're cost savings for someone else.

You have a startlingly narrow view of the world. Bikes are capable of shifting considerably more people over a given section of road, cause less damage to the road surface and create less pollution (i.e. lower overall healthcare costs). Building equivalent capacity transport systems is far more expensive (and sometimes simply impossible) for car only solutions in urban areas.

It doesn't matter if you never ride, you're still paying via taxes, insurance premiums, getting stuck in traffic and an additional cost on goods incurred from delivery having to run over a suboptimal system.

Comment Re: Good (Score 1) 701

Honestly that sounds more like you're kinda crap at buses rather than buses sucking per-se.

You've also missed a third and extremely important reason. Let's only consider rush hour here because it's the time that congestion is heaviest. Compare the amount of space on the road that a full bus (about 90 or so passengers) takes up compared to 90 or so commuter cars. A well run bus system is less polluting and heavily reduces traffic substantially compared to cars.

Comment Re:Too bad. (Score 4, Informative) 399

Really, the borrower has no responsibility to track the loan, it's all on the lender?

Yep. Otherwise, I as the supposed lender can demand that you start repaying that 500k loan I claim that you took out and according to you, the onus is on you to prove that there never was a loan.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Little else matters than to write good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer