Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Generation Z leans to the political right. (Score 3, Interesting) 208

> I would also like you to explain to me what a "Social Justice Warrior" is

Replace the words with:


and you'll start to understand it what it means.

SJW is (typically) a dumb Gen Z with a pet peeve over some perceived bullshit "injustice" -- basically anything that doesn't agree with THEIR myopic philosophy. Now instead of actually _doing_ something AFTER careful analysis of BOTH sides of the issue, because issues are almost never black and white, they would rather have a knee-jerk reaction and whine about it instead.

For more information see the book:

SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police

There is no reasoning with these irrational people. They believe their POV (point-of-view) is the ONLY right one and blindly ignore facts. The classic attack is the ad hominem using labels as misogynist, trigger, microagression, etc. They are so insecure with their immaturity that they have to attack everyone else who doesn't agree with them. It is the ultimate Political Censorship gone wrong.

South Park poked fun of their stupidity in Season 19 by calling them Pussy Crushers

* Truth and Advertising
* PC Principal or DailyMotion

The only valid tactic is to ignore these whiney cunts -- because they make the classic Internet Trolls look like Saints in comparison -- otherwise you are just wasting your time.

You can fix ignorant.
You can't fix Stupid (Juvenile Whiners.)

Comment Two Solutions (Score 4, Insightful) 258

Programmers love to use the cop-out

"Premature Optimization is the root of evil"

dogma which is complete bullshit. It tells me your mindset is:

"Oh, we'll "fix" performance issue later."

Except later never comes. /Oblg. Murphy's Computer Law:

* There is never time to do it right, but there is always time to do it over.

As Fred Brooks said in Mythical Man-Month.

"Show me your flowcharts and conceal your tables, and I shall continue to be mystified.
  Show me your tables, and I won't usually need your flowcharts; they'll be obvious."
-- Fred Brooks

Which can be translated into the modern vernacular as:

* Show me your code and I'll wonder what your data structures are,
* Show me your data and I'll already know what your code is

There are 2 solutions to this problem of crappy library code.

1. You are benchmarking your code, ALONG THE WAY, right?

Most projects "tack-on" optimization when the project is almost completed. This is completely BACKWARDS. How do you know which functions are the performance hogs when you have thousands to inspect?

It is FAR simpler to be constantly monitoring performance from day one. Every time new functionality is added, you measure. "Oh look, our startup time went from 5 second to 50 seconds -- what the hell was just added?"

NOT: "Oh, we're about to ship in a month, and our startup time is 50 seconds. Where do we even begin in tracking down thousands of calls and data structures?"

I come from a real-time graphics background -- aka games. Every new project our skeleton code runs at 120 frames per second. Then as you slowly add functionality you can tell _instantly_ when the framerate is going down. Oh look, Bob's latest commit is having some negative performance side effects. Let's make sure that code is well designed, and clean BEFORE it becomes a problem down the road and everyone forgets about it.

2. You have a _baseline_ to compare against? Let's pretend you come up with a hashing algorithm, and you want to know how fast it is. The *proper* way is to

* First benchmark how fast you can slurp data from a disk, say 10 GB of data. You will never be FASTER then this! 100% IO bound, 0% CPU bound.
* Then, add a single-threaded benchmark where you just sum bytes.
* Maybe, you add a multi-threaded version
* Then you measure _your_ spiffy new function.

Library Vendors, such as Dinkumware who provide the CRTL (C-Run Time Library), _should_ be catching these shitty performance bugs, but sadly they don't. The only solution is to be proactive.

The zeroth rule in programming is:

* Don't Assume, Profile!

Which is analogous to what carpenters say:

* Measure Twice, Cut Once.

But almost no one wants to MAKE the time to do it right the first time. You can either pay now, or pay later. Fix the potential problems NOW before they become HUGE problems later.

And we end up in situations like this story.

Comment Re:Don't do what Evan Brown did (Score 1) 75

I've had a company try this to me as well. Simply just crossed it out. They didn't even bat an eye.

Seriously, a contract is an agreement that BOTH sides agree to. Far too many people just accept the terms 'as-is' not realizing that it works both ways. There has to be mutual agreement -- if you don't have that, you don't have a contract.

Comment Re:What the fuck is FMA? (Score 1) 112

> FMA instructions are Fused Multiply Add, whatever the fuck that is.

Really? You're posting on /. and you can't google it?

* Multiply-Accumulate

This commonly shows up when you are lerping (linear interpolating) between two values, a and b, you have a interpolation parameter usually called t:

x = a + (b-a)*t

Compilers will see this pattern and generate a FMA instruction for it, or you can write your own.

Copying the code snippet from this StackOverflow Question: How to use Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) instructions with SSE/AVX

float mul_add(float a, float b, float c) {
    return a*b + c;
__m256 mul_addv(__m256 a, __m256 b, __m256 c) {
    return _mm256_add_ps(_mm256_mul_ps(a, b), c);

The compiler will emit this instruction:


/voice = "Nick Burns"
Now, was that so hard?

But I guess it's easier to bitch about not understanding something then ask for help.

Comment Re:Android? (Score 2) 64

That is the GUI. A launcher completely replaces your homescreen and apps drawer, which is just an app. The default launcher has no special privlidges or permissions over a third party, so implementing it there is no more technically valuable than doing so in a 3rd party. So find a 3rd party you like and use it instead. That's one of the benefits of Android- swap out the parts you don't like.

Submission + - Texas feminist wants to fine men $100 each time they masturbate ( 1

mi writes: Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat, has proposed a bill that would fine a man $100 each time he masturbates. The bill also imposes a 24-hour waiting period if a guy wants a colonoscopy or a vasectomy, or if he's in the market for some Viagra.

Comment Re:Fucking Retarded UI (Score 1) 97

Dear Mathematically-Challenged,

The concept of zero has been around for thousands of years.

Instead of being a zero one day you will realize that 0% is a valid rating. But keep making excuses for why you have 0% comprehension for a basic concept regardless of what other sites do.

This concludes your history lesson for the day.

Comment Re:Fucking Retarded UI (Score 1) 97

You are assuming that just because a delta 25% works for YOU, that it works for EVERYONE else which is FALSE.

Only a complete moron wants to dumb ratings down so there are 3 levels from 50% to 100%.

2/4 = 50%
3/4 = 75%
4/4 = 100%

This is NOT granular enough.

Why do you think IMDB uses a percentage on a 10 point scale???

At the very least you want a 5 point scale:

5/5 = 100% = perfect / loved it
4/5 = 80% = good, but not quite great
3/5 = 60% = OK
2/5 = 40% = Bad
1/5 = 20% = Fail -- why am I even watch this crap ??? i.e. <a href="">Battlefield Earth (2000)</a>

Some people have proposed how to fix IMDB's broken scale

1. Do Not Want
God awful, makes you want to gouge your eyeballs out with a spork, and either head-butt the TV or try to hit the cinema screen with projectile vomit. Everything about this movie is bad to such a degree that it doesn't even become good in its badness. You really wish you had done something more worthwhile during the movie's running time, like trimming your nose hairs. If someone would give you this movie, you would microwave, burn, blend or eat it, to avoid the risk that other human beings could be exposed to it.

2. Awful
Still awful, but has at least one thing that is done well, like one decent scare in an otherwise pathetic horror movie, one good laugh in an otherwise decidedly unfunny comedy, one clever plot element, etc. You would never ever want to watch this again except maybe for that single good part.

3. Bad
Bad, but you agree that watching this film was an OK pastime on a lazy weekend evening because there was nothing else on TV and you were too lazy to dig up anything better. Or, you felt the need to expose yourself to something crappy to recalibrate your appreciation for movies, and without being a totally shameful waste of time it reminded you how bad a film can be. You could have better spent your time, though. You will definitely avoid watching it again, even on the next lazy weekend evening.

4. Nice Try, But No Cigar
Still bad, but is âalmost thereâ(TM). Either it has some good parts that are ruined by bad parts, or it stays at a constant level of âoeit had promise but the good part never cameâ. You still would never want to watch it again.

5. Meh
The threshold for âOKâ(TM). It's not good, not bad, just acceptable. This is the kind of movie that only just makes you feel you didn't waste 90+ minutes and/or the price of a cinema ticket. You would only want to watch it again under the conditions of 3, but you would never ever consider doing more effort than pushing a button on your TV remote to watch it again. This movie is either an equal mix of good and bad parts, or is just so forgettable that each time someone mentions the title, you need to read the plot and look at screenshots to remember what it was about. If you would be given this movie as a present, you would sell it or give it away.

6. Not Bad
It has some aspects that lift it above mediocrity and make it quite enjoyable to watch, but it either never becomes really good, or if it does, it still has some bad parts that drag it down. You would only watch it again spontaneously if it were a long time ago since you saw it and you re-watched all your movies scoring 7+ too recently. You would only recommend this to someone if they're really into the genre, but you would still warn them that it's not that good. You would never buy it, but if someone would give it to you, you wouldn't bother selling it unless you need to make room or are in desperate need to gain a few bucks.

7. Good
This movie is really worth watching and you would watch it again spontaneously, but not too often. It's just not that good that you would say to your friends that they would really miss out on something if they didn't watch it. It's very enjoyable despite some noticeably uninteresting parts, subpar acting, plot holes or other negative points that you'll always remember when thinking about this film. If you would find it in the bargain bin of your media store for a bottom price, you might buy it.

8. Very good
This is the kind of movie that you could watch again several times, even though it is clearly not perfect. There are still some minuses about this film, but the rest is good enough to almost forget those. You would recommend it to friends unless you know it's not their cup of tea. You would be prepared to pay the normal price in the media store, or buy it immediately if it's discounted.

9. Excellent
It is almost perfect. You could watch this movie again almost an unlimited number of times. It still has something significant you don't like, therefore you don't give it an outright 10. You would recommend this movie to your friends even if you know they don't like the genre, maybe it could change their mind. You would be prepared to pay more than the average price in the media store.

10. Perfect
You could watch this movie until eternity without ever getting bored by it. With each viewing you discover something new or see something in a different light, and/or the key scenes still thrill you even though you know them by heart. This movie has nothing in it that is less than good. If there's anything that is not perfect, it is greatly compensated for by something else that is stunningly brilliant or gripping. You would recommend this movie to everyone, even total strangers. You would not be satisfied with a simple regular release when buying it, but you would seek out a special edition in a fancy box or wait for the ultimate director's cut and be willing to pay a premium price.

The proper solution is to store a 100-point scale (0 to 100 inclusive) on the back end and on the front end let the USER decide if they want:

* ( ) 2 Star -- Thumbs Up/Down
* ( ) 3 Star -- Thumbs Up/Neutral/Down
* ( ) 4 Star
* ( ) 5 Star
* (x) 10 point scale
* ( ) Percentage

The system could even use zero to mean "unranked."

Then you can have your idiotic 4 point scale, I can have my 10 point scale, the freaks can have their 100% system, and the morons can have their Thumbs Up/Down 2 point scale and everyone is happy.

But go ahead and keep proposing idiotic half-baked ideas.

Comment Fucking Retarded UI (Score 4, Insightful) 97

What's next -- removing the thumbs down???

What the fuck is the point of having ratings if you are just going to make them homogeneous???

Just because _you,_ Netflix, don't let me rate a movie 0/5 doesn't mean it deserves a 1/5. IF I hate a movie it should get 0/5.

The WHOLE point of a 5 star rating is to provide fine-grained-ratings not some bullshit dual artificial rating. There is a HUGE difference between me liking a movie 50% and 100%. Some movies are 3/5 (60%), 4/5 (80%), and very few are 5/5 (100%). Lumping them these ALL together is fucking retarded. HOW is that helping the system find stuff I _really_ like vs stuff I _kind of_ like???

Slashdot Top Deals

A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.