Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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:Finding Patterns in Crime (Score 1) 55

there aren't obvious patterns in criminal activity. Sometimes they use code words, but the code words are different for every criminal.

I heavily used code-words at one place simply because the office politics were so intense that little things created drama storms.

Bob: "How's the hopper rider and the green peas?"

Me: "Oh, the Flanagan popped a rabbit, which agitated the mountaineer again."

Bob: "Yeah, their fiddle-sticks pack a punch. Good thing the Flux Whopper can plug the hole, otherwise Mr. Owl's tree branch would hang the cheese and us with it."

Me: "I know what you mean. Hammerheadding almost always beats painted planetariums."

Bob: "At least Spiderman didn't frisk the Joker's tentacle."

Me: "Indeed, I hate it when that happens. Take care, see ya tomorrow."

Bob: "Sure, don't let the plaid horse-bugs bite."

People thought we were on LSD, but at least we avoided trouble.

Comment Re:Is this legal? (Score 2) 55

You answered your own question. You can get rid of the manual review. Plus, if you can just point a big-ass data stream at Watson and it can actually ferret out malfeasance, you can also get rid of the folks who program those "other forms of automation".

Instead, you'll be replacing them with a smaller number of people who can choose training sets and interpret Watson's output. You'll also see savings in your programming costs, as you've replaced several fraud detection systems with a single, unified system. So you get a smaller workforce.

You also get a more bifurcated workforce, with a small number of jobs being up-skilled (and more-highly paid), while a larger number of jobs are down-skilled or eliminated altogether. Whether this works when translated to a large portion of the white-collar, service-sector workforce as a whole is left as an exercise to the reader.

Comment Re:Online ? Authors never shopped in real life (Score 1) 237

Because I hate to tell you, but stores in Beverly Hills charge more than they do in Compton for the exact same product.

Personally, I would lump the surcharge for blowing smoke up the customer's ass as part of the actual product for most of the merchandise available in Beverly Hills. When you're wealthy enough, the retail experience is the product, and what you actually take home is just the Broadway playbill souvenir.

Comment Re:Fluid type manipulation with unions (Score 1) 405

Granted, you're not making it worse in any way by representing it with a union.

More to the point, you can't make it better by avoiding using a union. Because it's optimum as is.

The right tool for the right job.

pretty much the essence of obscure legacy cruft.

The job is the job. I have no problem using the right tool for the job.

Comment Re:structs and fundamental OO (Score 1) 405

By "merely", I meant C (and HLL's) didn't originate the idea.

I'm not sure what you mean by "less good". You seemed to agree there's a trade-off between optimizing for "machine" resources/time, and abstraction/discipline/consistency/clarity. "Good" would then be relative to needs, such as business requirements/goals.

Comment Re:structs and fundamental OO (Score 1) 405

You are just reinventing machine language where data, instructions, and address pointers can be mixed willy-nilly.

Because machine language varies hugely, and c varies little or none, when working on one platform and then another, c is a convenient low-level way to get as many advantages of working close to the metal (obvious ones are speed and executable size) as possible.

Higher-level languages merely try to introduce discipline and consistency to such practices.

Yes, they do. And in the process, they often cause the resulting product to suffer in speed and/or execution size (and the source code in clarity.) When "mere" means "the product is less good", I translate it as "not mere."

There are reasons to go one way or another. It's not as simple as "HLL's are always better." Sometimes even machine language is the best place to go, embedded controllers with limited storage and small tasks that must be accomplished efficiently, for instance.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities." -- Robin Williams, _Good Morning Vietnam_