Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:wikipedia (Score 0) 252

"In spades"? Really?

I think you say so prematurely.

Because I, for one, don't understand a FUCKING thing about allllllll of this Anti-Beta graffito all over Slashdot.

You stupid fucks are basically now Public Nuisance #1. It's gotten nothing done and it should get nothing done because any number of simple assholes shouldn't have any affect on any SYSOPs policies.

All you've managed to do is be a bunch of simpletons pissing off people who could give a fuck less how the site ends up looking as long as it serves its purpose. And the purpose of Slashdot isn't served by you assclowns bitching up and down every last mother fucking cascade.

You haven't made ANY point, you didn't HAVE any fucking point to begin with, and it's not old now -- it was fucking pointless and old to begin with.

Wait, I was wrong, it did change ONE fucking thing:

If it goes on much longer, it's going to change how much time I spend learning how to filter the bejesus out of crowds of moronic assclowns. If I have to "enemy" five, ten, a dozen idiots every visit to the threads just to make sure I don't have to see what is likely to become an infantile never ending fucking story, then I'll do that. All you're gauranteeing is that eventually you'll be completely fucking ignored.

I hope you have a shitty fucking day!

Comment answer: i dunno (Score 1) 876

"Why have graphical code generators that could seemingly open coding to the masses gone nowhere? At a minimum wouldn't that eliminate time dealing with syntax errors?"

Where is "nowhere"? Also, what are you referring to when you say "that"? I'm lost in parsing this sentence. And how does a graphical interface eliminate syntactical expressiveness and therefore the potential for syntactical error? Are you suggesting that a language is better off not having any combinations of operators that could potentially result in syntactical error, with everything parsed as equally valid?

"Shouldn't there be a simpler, more robust way to translate an algorithm into something a computer can understand? One that's language agnostic and without all the cryptic jargon? It seems we're still only one layer of abstraction from assembly code."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. What cryptic jargon? Have you ever actually used assembly or ANSI-C ? They are pretty un-jargon as far as languages go. Jargon is higher-order language that is so built up on technical definitions defined recursively by further technical definitions, that the language is so specialized, that only a specialized segment of the population can understand it. Most mnemonics (which C for example is -- a mnemonic for assembly, albeit in modern versions accompanied by many helpful and useful tools on the side) ... most mnemonics are by definition easier to understand than jargon. And most programming languages are mnemonic in some way, shape, or form. When you say we're one layer of abstraction from assembly code, I'm not entirely clear whether you think that's good or bad, or if you're just cleverly trolling us all.

"I consider myself someone who 'gets code,' but I'm not a programmer. I enjoy thinking through algorithms and writing basic scripts, but I get bogged down in more complex code. Maybe I lack patience, but really, why are we still writing text based code?"

Everybody gets bogged down in more complex code. That's why there are numerous attempts at simplifying coding in general. Procedural code, functional-argument code, object-oriented programming, it's all an attempt to put more and more "ease of use" into the programmer's life.

These methods don't always work, period, let alone for everybody or even for all coders. The Java language is the current best case in point of this. Java shows what can go wrong with not only a programming language but any tool, or project, or system when it suffers from too many eggs in one basket -itis.

I myself suffered programming burnout at a young age. I had been programming since 8 years old but never quite "got" it, just inputting code from magazines (back when we still did that) and modifying strings and variables. I understood GOTO and GOSUB but still didn't grasp that these essentially put procedural programming in the hands of lined BASIC.

I remember when I met one BBS sysop when I was BBSing and SYSOPing in the early 90's, around the time I was 15 or 16. I had asked him for advice in programming this QBASIC thing I was making. I kept getting out of memory errors. And he said if the program is too big, I'm likely to get that particular error and he asked to see my program. Well, it was all lined code (which QBASIC still supported) and because I had no sense of procedure, what I had was an attempt to hard-wire the entire game including all of its choices.

Learning procedure and function was pretty amazing, but the same helpful SYSOP went further and started teaching me C++. So now I was learning pointers and references as variables, functions as arguments, and recursive programming. I started getting headaches, my head was actually physically overheating when I was programming, and I gave out. I didn't program anything from the age of 16 until about roughly 26 or so.

I approached returning to code with a fresh perspective. I wanted to learn 8086 assembly, but I didn't want to run an old DOS machine and learn old DOS conventions of assembly, I wanted to program for windows. So I looked into assembly for windows. There is one really great-sounding windows assembly language out there called SPASM, "Specific Assembler". It allows you to write and re-write your mnemonic in-line in the form of "macros". That's pretty extraordinary. And I also learned, sadly, that assembly in windows is brutal. A bare skeleton with a pop-up window and a close button is a pretty rich undertaking. I had looked into assembly with an urge to approach programming like building things out of wonderful, colorful LEGO blocks, and instead it was like I was being asked to perform liposuction on a morbidly obese bed patient, by scooping the fat out of the belly with my own bare hands, all to be performed with the recesses of a gaping red bedsore.

So, I learned C instead. There are always tough choices in programming. C is that "one layer away from assembly" that you describe, and there simply isn't a better language than C >>> IMHO .

Because I was able to shuffle away what would have been hours and hours, and weeks, and months, and years of getting the hang of coding the guts of assembly programs inside of the windows environment (although that would have been alleviated greatly, I suspect, through SPASM) and instead focus on things like programming logic and good coding practices, I was able to program better than I ever had when I was being tutored by somebody who today works north of Silicon Valley doing just about everything.

For instance, I used to plan programs in the GUI or inside of a text editor. What the hell good is that? Code planning calls for a nice large piece of blank paper or a big dry-erasable board, not the squished lines of a computer screen. And I used to just deal with the conventions of the GUI. Now I don't use a GUI unless it's highly configurable. One of the first things I did while learning C was make my own indentation rules. Just that act alone, working in a set indentation scheme fit to my own personal demands from then out, increased my learning and productivity by a very noticeable degree. Said Sililcon Valley friend, seeing it a couple of years later, was impressed enough to give it a try. That's highly effective programming across numerous levels. And where is the GUI or the mnemonic in any of that?

The use of the graphical environment isn't to "make programming easier". The "Main #1 Reason" for GUIs in coding is a tie between two things:

a) It fits the convention of what people most appreciate seeing on their screen. Even the Borland GUI back in the DOS days was glorified and fattened with a nice drop-menu user interface in text mode. Most of the popular DOS applications featured this semi-graphical text mode interface, so that's what was appreciated by users. It fit in with the rest of their computer use experience.

b) It makes code-management easier -- nothing to do with making coding itself easier at all. If you don't know how to program, a GUI is of no use at all. In fact, the GUI is probably going to be more of a distraction and a sort of bewildering architectural maze than it is of any help. I can't stand the idea of teaching college programming courses inside the GUI. There are some good (great?) instructors out there who teach the essentials in command-line interface and then expect the students to perform inside the GUI, but they are exceptions to the rule.

So, this argument you're making that there's something wrong with current trends in programming in general just because the GUI doesn't magically make programmers out of dimwits doesn't really hold water.

It's not about the GUI or about the mnemonic, especially when the best sort of language lets you rewrite the mnemonic in-line any way and in which case THAT language inside THAT program that THAT programmer is making would be THE MOST "jargon" programming language anybody could expect to find because it makes no sense outside of the program itself.

It's just about how you approach code and how coding is taught to you.

Comment Re:I think his own comments about how he... (Score 1) 412

I've been watching the game since the 80's, and I can tell you that it's a very common strategy to bet low on the Daily Double if you don't feel like you're in mastery of the category. Even more common is to bet less money than would severely cripple your score against the score of the next player beneath you given the remaining board. So obviously your citation of the spirit of the game is, like most unwritten rules, largely in your head.

Comment Re:He doesn't have to know the answer (Score 5, Insightful) 412

It is fun for me because this is exactly how I played with my family and friends on numerous "at home" versions including computer and console software over the decades (and no, I didn't know all the answers -- it's just a good strategy). I like seeing the more intelligent player triumph and I hope this becomes how Jeopardy is played in the future -- the high-scoring brackets are desired foremost and the lower stuff is pigeon poop to be swooped up by the scavengers or stolen from their beaks. The programmers will have to change up where the Daily Doubles are located but this will not stop the trend of smarter or more confident players grabbing the higher scoring brackets sooner to keep them away from the others.

Comment ... okay? cool, but what? (Score 2) 163

In chemistry and physics courses you'll find you often do lab work not in discovery of new things but to prove things that are already known. It turns out to be pretty simple to do an experiment to prove that two related theories can be measurably shown to be not false, through some apparatus under some paradigm.

So this woman used existing knowledge of how GPS works, of audio modulated data, and a chase that she also apparently knew the location of, and showed that the location of the chase matches the location being communicated. Okay, so that's cool.

But what did she accomplish? I am, of course, asking this from the "how is this news" rostrum. It's a great proof of theory but what the hell does it have to do with anything?

Oh, wait. The elephant in the room. I see what's going on, here, you geeks got all fucked up in the head again because here comes another woman with skills.

A man who turns into putty for women isn't trustworthy, you know that? Strong women prey on those guys and they become security concerns.

If you can't treat women as equals, then all of your wowie-zowie about women "doing guy things" is empty. You're more self-impressed at other males than impressed at this woman's potential.

Comment Re:Just create artificial gravity (Score 1) 267

So in other words, rotate the ship at regular intervals doing this acceleration and deceleration until you get to the end of the trip. It's the same two force vectors cut up into pieces and interleaved. The repeated turns would add to the overall cost but the same amount of fuel would be spent on the same two overall vectors of acceleration.

Comment what's "interesting"? (Score 1) 206

What *I* find "interesting" is that even though old grandparents have always been saying things like "It's not that grandma's getting stupid, sweetie, it's just that when you're my age you know so much that it takes awhile to remember what you know", none of that matters if the newest generation hasn't climbed out of their dungeons to announce that they simulated the same thing on a computer. Relevance, anyone? Reverence, maybe?

Comment Re:Electrical != Electronic (Score 1) 397

The "subset" response from AC is total bullshit. Electrical Engineering and Electronic Engineering are two entirely different career fields. Idiot self-imposed know it all's like AC are who's behind the article for instance not knowing the damn difference. One's not a subset of the other, both are a subset for sure of engineering dealing with electricity but frankly I don't think you'll find any career fields that expect both skill sets from you. Having taken college courses in both, let me assure you, one's not a subset of the other and having a degree in both does mean taking two almost entirely separate degrees. The engineer planning a power station is not going to be prepared for the engineer planning transistor logic, and vice versa. The guy climbing a pole and the guy soldering a board are not going to be interchangeable.

Comment go away, religion (Score 1) 1038

I don't think the admonishment should have been "one commandment you should abide by", rather it should have been "a moral you yourself obviously abide by".

You could attack the commenter's stance just by pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding murder in return for murder. Either murder's wrong, or it's not.

I think the situation is muddy enough, thanks, without the interjections of the religious.

Comment Re:Time to overhaul the Credit Card system in the (Score 1) 151

PINs are sort of stupid in a retail setting, any way. The way most pads are set up, the other customers can clearly see what digits you're inputting, and voila, now they can use your card at any ATM.

Signatures are just as pointless. They don't prove anything unless you have a meticulous signature. People in general aren't that anal and unless you're Benjamin Franklin or some shit with a degree in calligraphy, the makeup of your signature fluctuates over time.

The US appears to be using a system that's outlived its usefulness.

Slashdot Top Deals

Chemist who falls in acid will be tripping for weeks.