Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Wrong door? (Score 1) 33

Sure, cuz they want to get home in one piece. But I've never seen a drunk step carefully once they're out of their car. Because it's primitively understood that falling down is generally vastly less dangerous than getting in a car wreck.

In the dark, a drunk would've tripped on the single step up to my stoop.

Comment Re:My $0.02... (Score 1) 33

I wonder if one's ears are pretty much blown out when firing any kind of serious firearm indoors, without ear protection. That's another reason I don't want to have to reload, as I might be pretty disoriented after the first shot.

Comment Re:A pump action BB Gun (Score 1) 33

This'll make RG cringe, but it occurred to me that I'm not looking for "stopping power" (as in putting the guy down) in a firearm and load, I'm looking for "repelling power". Because, as I said, I don't want to kill or seriously harm anyone. I want him to run off, not bleed out in my living room.

It seems like if someone wants to kill me, they can just jump me as I come out of my house, or follow me to work and jump me there, or to the grocery store and gun me down in the parking lot. I'm not worried about people wanting to come into my house to kill me, and who are willing to risk their own lives to do so. There's easier ways. And I'm not going to get into a shoot-out in my home, nor am I going to try to flush them out if they lie in wait somewhere downstairs.

I can't do anything about my vulnerability to someone wanting to kill me, so I'm not trying. I just want to be able to get an intruder to leave my home immediately. So I'd favor something typically non-lethal, especially considering in California they like to charge people with crimes for defending themselves and their homes/businesses, so it would be a plus if I had the legal standing of using something that didn't qualify as "deadly force".

But unfortunately the less the lethality of a load choice, the more that reloadability comes into play. For me it would be a balance of potentially killing or maiming, versus having to only say it once. And I think I would weight it in favor of the latter. I.e. I don't want to have to reload in a panic situation, so it's got to be a strong enough single response, to dissuade those even high on something, but should be no stronger. Or as close as I can get to this, I think.

Comment Re:From the pdf... (Score 1) 201

No, the best part is that NASA were able to prove 1000 times more accurately than the Chinese that the "engine" produced NO thrust and that there are some inaccuracies that they haven't eliminated.

...By arbitrarily ignoring the design used by not just the Chinese, but also the British, and coming up with their own entirely different and untested version. "Hah, we've proven that your Bugatti Veyron can't do 0-6 in under 2.5 seconds, because we tried it in our Ford Fiesta and it took over 9 seconds!".

Wee bit of "Not built here" syndrome, I wonder?

Comment Re:its why devs cringe. (Score 1) 180

FWIW, in answer to your "Can't speak for PHP" thing, PHP has, for reasons known only to the person that implemented, two incompatible dictionary type structures, objects and arrays. They're both equivalent, and because they're not compatible an enormous number of developers of third party libraries and frameworks feel the need to implement a "Give me it as an object"/"Give me it as an associative array" parameter onto any function that returns one or the other.

And lest you think "Wait! It's obvious squiggy! The associative array is obviously using hashtables and the other is typed!", that's... not (quite) the case. If PHP is optimizing anything with objects at some level, it's certainly not doing so based upon "static-after-parsing-app" set of possible member names: you can convert each to the other form with a simple cast, and you $some_array[$expression] has an object equivalent of $some_object->{$expression}. If it isn't using hashtables for objects too, then it's probably doing something even more braindead.

Comment Re:Change management fail (Score 0) 162

It is only simple because you speak English. You need to widen your cultural perspectives.

Sorry, which culture has come begging the other to employ them?

Maybe you should take that as a hint as to which of us needs to change their perspective.

And for the record, I vehemently oppose the indentured-H1B program (particularly while we have above-average unemployment and college-educated CS grads working as Barristas). I've worked with H1Bs before, and although skill-wise I've found them basically comparable to middle-of-the-pack Americans (not saying much there, but I wouldn't call them totally incompetent), the exact cultural barrier you describe made them nearly useless. They'd agree on a detailed spec for a printer driver, and three months later, proudly show off a photo editing suite. Okay, not quite that bad, but getting good work out of an H1B requires daily (or more) handholding and walking them through the same shit over and over and over. And at the end of the project, I could have just done it (and my own work) faster without the extra body in the way.

Comment Re:Formal specifications are pretty useless for th (Score 1) 180

Unless we're using "formal specification" in a form uncommonly known in the English language, ANSI C (hint hint) does, indeed, have a formal specification or three.

In fact, that's part of the problem with C. ANSI spent a lot of time trying to make their specification so generic it could be implemented on all kinds of different hardware, leaving us with a language that means virtually every bit of "obvious what it does" readable code can be re-interpreted by every optimizing compiler to mean something completely different. A big problem, considering C's system programming roots.

Comment Re: Change management fail (Score 1) 162

Sorry but DevOps requires you upgrade all servers at the same time very fast, with no regard to individual server ordering.

Did you mean NetOps? DevOps refers to a development paradigm. If your development paradigm risks actual user-impacting down-time, you need firing ASAP.
Assuming you meant NetOps, can they live with provisioning me at least four (dev, test, UAT, and training) clones of the entire production environment? No? well then, they can make their case to the CTO whether inconveniencing them or our end users will have more of an impact on the bottom line. If the CTO says "go", hell, I'll code right in the production environment - Oh, you wanted that mortgage payment to go through this week? Bummer!

Developers should never have the power to affect end users. If they do, it represents a failure not on their part, but on the entire IT corporate food chain, all the way to the top. Choosing customer-facing downtime over a few more terabytes and VMs amounts to corporate suicide.

Comment Re:Change management fail (Score 1, Insightful) 162

It takes two to fail to communicate. You should not be asking questions that require a direct "yes or no" answer. In many cultures, that is considered rude.

Sorry, what part of paying you to do a job requires me to give a shit about whether or not your failed third-world culture doesn't like answering direct fucking questions?

"Rude" does not apply. Breach of contract, however, does. I just wish more companies would catch on to this before they decide to outsource, rather than paying extra for literally nothing more than a built-in scapegoat for any and all problems.

Slashdot Top Deals

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.