Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Good Stuff (Score 1) 92

Well, superconductors killed my dad, so I'm looking for an immediate ban. If you don't like that, you can just say that directly to distraught face of my poor widowed mother. Superconductors also stole all of the insurance money and repeatedly raped my sister. Well, she called it rape, but really there was no resistance.

Sorry, we are superconductors. Resistance is futile.

Comment Re:I Used a Popular Online Tax Service... (Score 1) 237

1. Buy a stock that you expect to decrease in value in the short term, but to make money in the long term. You pay, say, $10,000.

2. It drops to $5,000. Sell, you can mark off the $5,000 loss on your taxes.

3. Wait 30 days, then take that $5,000 and buy the same stock again. You can still take the $5,000 loss, but if (when) the stock finally appreciates, you make money there, too. :)

What about following plan.

1. Put $10000 in bank.

2. Wait 30 days, buy $7500 of stock and $2500 for taxes.

3. ???

4. Profit

Comment Re:GCJ vs. JIT (Score 1) 181

P.S.: While I understand that much C/C++ syntax is driven by prior choices, much of this new syntax is UGLY. That's been a problem ever since templates started appearing, but it's gotten worse with every addition. At some point they need to do a de novo redefinition of syntax, and define an isomorphism between the two syntaxes. Then a compiler switch can alternate between syntaxes until the current version can be deprecated. I'm starting to think that APL had a better design than modern C++, and that was BAD. Now, in addition to > they've got [[ ]], and I guess next will be (( )) (unless that's already in use somewhere).

Yes, (( )) is used in attributes. Also ({ }) is used to convert compound statement into expression. You are left with {{ and {( and when these will be taken we start to use {) (}.

Comment Re:Nothing you can do? (Score 1) 99

This is one reason why people recommend sudo instead of su. The admin logs in as himself and gains root privilege using his personal password. There is no shared root password, so you only have to disable the old admin's account and sudo access.

They recommend it as safer in theory.
In practice sudo is source of jokes like:
Q: H0w d0 I h4ck ubuntu?
A:
user
user
sudo
user

Comment Re:Let me be 1 of the 1st here (Score 2) 478

Not necessarily: If it is domestic high-quality outsourcing, you know the people personally and there is a long-standing connection, it can work. But off-shoring basically never works and a cultural gap ensures that. Same wit off-shoring to China.

Quite the contrary, Chineese contractors are very intelligent. You can get a top talent from Chineese intelligence agency for cheap.

Comment Re:Relative (Score 1) 356

Heh, I spent a year cleaning up after the last "10x" developer. 10x the productivity, 10x the bugs.

Of course, his defect densitity is 10/10=1 which is a defect density of average programmer. So I hired him and you which saves us salary of 8 developers. Now get back to work.

-- your boss

Comment Re:Neither (Score 5, Interesting) 277

I'm going with Coolidge on this one. "Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence...

This is not true, to quote Kurt von Hammerstein:

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.

I seen plenty of programmers that are persistent but their code is flawed on so many levels that if I wrote that code myself it would save me time over convincing managers that their code needs fixing and fixing it.

Comment Re:Dispute - not often at all (Score 2) 510

How much would someone have benefited from having a car that cost 1/10th of what you paid but without many of those safety features? Someone then able to get to a job, who could then earn more, save more, and eventually afford a nice, safe car like yours. But now he can't, because the price of a car is too much.

That type of car is called motorcycle.

Comment Re:Finally Fixing the Date stuff (Score 1) 434

why not

do {
foo();
bar();
} while (baz())

Am I missing something?

You missed ... Actually it continues with:

l4: if (baw()) goto l2;
...

With generic proof you can just append

else if (line==4) {
if (baw())
line=2;
else
line=5;
}

without resorting to ad-hoc constructs.

Comment Re:Finally Fixing the Date stuff (Score 1) 434

find your gratuitous slur against "academic types" unwarranted and unfair. Academia has produced much innovation in programming. Do you forget the proof that Structured Programming is sufficient, and GOTOs are not necessary?

Nice now I can write

l1: foo();
l2: bar();
l3: if (baz()) goto l1;
...

as

line=1;
while (1) {
if (line==1) {
foo();
line=2;
}
else if (line==2) {
bar();
line=3;
}
else if (line==3) {
if (baz())
line=1;
else
line=4;
}
...

Slashdot Top Deals

And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones

Working...