Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment It is a problem I've talked about for a long time (Score 0) 130

And one that often gets me downvoted since Mac users don't like to hear it: Apple is a fashion company. That's why they've been able to do what they do. In fashion, a higher price can be a GOOD thing not a bad thing, whereas consumer electronics are one of the most notoriously price sensitive markets out there.

However the downside is as you say: What is fashionable changes and it is really hard to stay on top of it forever.

Comment Re:Line between C and C++ blurred ... (Score 1) 285

You need to understand whatever bit of C++ you are using to "enhance" C. Plus operator overloading doesn't require that you shift from a C design and philosophy approach. I used operator overloading in a decimal math library, its fairly K&R looking code. The user defined decimal number type doing what one would expect with mathematical operators.

Comment Actually you may not want plant on live fire range (Score 1, Interesting) 285

There's nothing wrong with cutting costs and reducing pollution. These rounds aren't being made for killing people.

Actually they may kill people. By planting seeds and growing plants on a live fire training range they are potentially hiding unexploded ordinance. Making it harder to recognize and increasing the likelihood of accidental detonation.

Comment Re:Line between C and C++ blurred ... (Score 1) 285

Actually I've started projects and inherited projects that used the hybrid approach. The goal, back in the day, was to "enhance" C with a little bit of C++. The coding style and approach was still essentially C. The notion that using C++ requires a full blown OO approach and use of many advanced features is mistaken.

Comment Line between C and C++ blurred ... (Score 1) 285

I'm well aware of this, but it doesn't change the fact that C++ is a different language with a fundamentally different philosophy. Adding features to a language is not some kind of neutral operation; it can affect users that have no intention of using those features.

The point you are missing is that you don't have to use most of those features, and sometimes you should not. If someone want to write a project in "C" they will probably use a C++ compiler and use a minor feature of C++ or two. Their resulting code being far closer to C design and philosophy than C++'s. People have been doing so since the 90s. So the lines are quite blurred and the original question poorly thought out.

Comment Re:No, it wasn't (Score 1) 104

Well two things there BTChead:

1) Some currencies DO move large amounts and that is NOT considered successful. When the pound was experiencing instability, that was a big cause for concern. It was not considered a "success" as people seem to think for BTC.

2) It was 8%, not 30%. Bit of a difference there.

Like I said before: You can't have it both ways. If you want it to be a good currency, then stability is what you want. If you are happy with rapid fluctuations, then it is a speculative betting opportunity.

Comment No, it wasn't (Score 3, Interesting) 104

Not just because it doesn't work as a currency, but because for currencies big swings in valuation, up or down, are no "good performance". Ideally a currency would be completely stable. What $1 buys now would be what $1 buys tomorrow, and what it buys in a thousand years. Of course in reality none of them are totally stable, but the good ones are pretty stable. They move a very small amount, and do so very gradually. They function as a good store of wealth for that reason, and more importantly make for a useful medium of exchange. Since their value is pretty constant, people have a good feeling for how much they are "worth" and can mentally price things.

Bitcoin did well as a speculative bet. If you want to play financial speculation, Bitcoin is a good target as it moves like a very thinly traded stock. That means it can swing bit and make you a lot of money. Also means it can swing big the other way and lose you a lot. So like any sort of speculation, you need to know what you are getting in to and understand the risks.

You BTC promoters can't have it both ways: If Bitcoin is a good currency then it needs to be stable. If Bitcoin is a good investment, then it isn't a currency.

Comment Re:Full Employment Act for Comedians (Score 1) 1069

The popular is trivia because no one was trying for the popular. Had anyone cared they would have spent time and money very different, and the result would have been a very different popular from the one we have now. Hence the one we have is trivia, its a coincidental outcome not the desired outcome strived for and not even the "real" popular, with or without Californians. Of which I am one.

Comment Don't allow likes, etc during edit window (Score 1) 75

There needs to be a time limit for editing tweets. Five minutes is good. This keeps someone from going back and changing what they said long after they said it. There also needs to be a flag that tells people that the tweet was edited. This prevents modifying a tweet after people have already agreed with it, etc.

Don't allow likes, replies, forwarding, etc during the edit window.

Or cancel/delete any likes, replies, forwarding, etc when an edit occurs, basically deter editing. If the original content changes the feedback should be removed. Yes, this can be abused but it seems less troublesome than letting feedback persist after an edit. Maybe notify the replier and if they care they could check the edited original and restore their feedback if they still care too. This would let them call out someone who completely changed what they originally said.

Slashdot Top Deals

The disks are getting full; purge a file today.