Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Re: Bad Headline (Score 1) 572

I found you an example, one on which he even doubled down later.

If you refuse to understand the plain meaning of the words uttered in that example, I'm afraid I cannot help you. You will just keep saying "that's not what he meant" or "that shouldn't be taken serious" or "he said something else later" regardless of any actual quote, so why bother? We've seen how it works multiple times during the election.

And if that is the case, any conversation with you is fundamentally meaningless for any purpose other than gathering data on how to thwart you and your ilk as much as possible. I'm certainly not going to convince you of anything.

Comment Re:Yes.... (Score 0) 312

Folks, we live in an age where programmers declare integers that are going to count from 1...10 as LONG INTEGERS, eating 8 bytes of RAM, where only 1 byte is needed.

Well, does it matter? On a modern system, RAM is allocated in chunks of 4kiB in most architectures. Your variable is going to be either on the stack or BSS section, and really, unless you're really using that page up, using 1 byte or 8 bytes is going to matter not at all because you're really using 4096 bytes and if you're not using it all, it makes zilch of a difference. Loading 1 byte of 8 bytes from RAM to registers still causes a cache line of bytes to be read (16 bytes on a lot of architectures) and fitted into a while 8-byte wide register in the end.

Depending on your needs, using a 64-bit variable to hold 4 bits of data may be more efficient if using 1 byte access causes significant slowdowns because of misalignment.

Hell, the most constrained I've been was using an ARM microcnotroller. It's quite a strange feeling working with 8K of RAM and 16k of flash and yet having full 32-bit pointers and integers

Comment Re:Maybe I'm more anal-retentive than most (Score 1) 146

(1) You're getting on a 6am flight, so you're going through security at 5am and haven't had a cup of coffee yet because the TSA won't allow you to carry one. So you're just in a "haze."

(2) You have small children or are accompanying a person who can't take care of their own stuff for some reason, so you're juggling a huge number of bins and bags and trying not to forget anything, while also trying not to hold up the line.

For (1), you realize you should be at the airport around 2 hours ahead of the flight (domestic) or 3 hours ahead (international) to make time. If you need a coffee to be awake, you make sure you get one before reaching the airport. Yes, it this means a 6AM flight has you waking up at 2AM or so so you can get your coffee, shower, check out, taxi, etc and make it to the airport at 4AM. If you can't do it, book a later flight. International flights would basically mean midnight wakeup.

For (2), you hold up the line. No matter what they say, you take your time getting y ourself sorted. Now, you move to the end of the ramp and onto the tables if you can, but you sort yourself out and make sure all those bins are empty before putting them back.

Which brings me to my #1 pet peeve. Why don't they have longer ramps both before and after security? A lot of the places, you have to be the next in line for the scanner before you can pick up a tote and start unpacking your laptop and tablet and all the other stuff, which holds up the line. Let 4-5 people in line get their totes and start getting themselves sorted out so by the time they reach the head of the line they're all ready.

Likewise, have long ramps so lots of people can pack themselves up after scanning. What holds up the security line is not the scanning, it's all the preparation you have to do. So let people do it while they wait in line rather than force a mad scramble. Hell, the line would probably move faster too.

Comment Re: Bad Headline (Score 1) 572

The question doesn't ask about a specific Trump plan - that would be impossible, because Trump contradicts himself all the time. They ask about a specific plan of a "national Muslim registry", which was talked about by Trump during the election. The lack of details is deliberate - it shouldn't really matter what such a plan entails, exactly, the only sensible answer for anything with such a name is "no".

Comment Re: Those who something, something (Score 1) 572

No, there isn't one. But this statement doesn't establish a clear separation of church and state. The way it has been historically interpreted by pretty much every Christian society, is that there should be a distinct secular leaders (and hierarchy under them) and religious leaders (and hierarchy under them), but they are not separate. The secular leaders have a duty to promote and spread religion, and protect it from attacks (including ideological attacks - punishing heresies etc). And the religious leaders preach that it's a religious duty to obey the [righteous] secular leaders, and bless their policies. This has been the case since Constantine, and the Greek even concocted a term for this arrangement - "symphonia of powers".

In practice, you still get a theocracy.

Comment Re: Bad Headline (Score 1) 572

Which part of the question is loaded?

It's very blunt and straightforward: if the Trump administration follows up on any of his campaign promises wrt Muslim registry, will you assist? Yes/no?

And it's not even out of the blue. It's not like it is a deliberately concocted hypothetical scenario. It is something that Trump himself has talked about, repeatedly. It's not at all unreasonable to ask companies whether they would be involved.

Comment Extremeism lost (Score 3, Informative) 292

Unfortunately, it looks like extremism has become more popular.

Not from where I'm sitting. From everything Trump has said and done after the election, he's actually been quite reasonable - it's Clinton supporters that have gone insane, and during the election were pulling every dirty trick possible to win. Reasonableness triumphed over extremism for once, I'm hoping it's the start of a trend.

Comment Re:Women read Playboy too (Score 1) 237

I wouldn't call it obligation so much as a nod to the majority of people's sexual interests, regardless of gender. Tactically it would be a way to remove all grounds for complaint by all but the most fringe and unreasonable people, whose complaints would hurt themselves much more than the organization handing out magazines.

Comment Re: Bad Headline (Score 1) 572

Working for a corporation doesn't make you a robot.

Quite often (but not always), particularly for sensitive issues, working for a corporation absolutely makes you a robot. Given the choice between having a viable career in the corporation or shutting up and going along, choosing the former means that you aren't really part of the corporation and choosing the latter makes you a robot.

Comment Trademarks (Score 1) 103

okay, so this is about trademarks. canonical's trademark is being brought into disrepute by the irresponsible action of some cloud providers: it's perfectly reasonable for them to sort this out. now, here's where i have an issue with canonical: why do they think it's okay to have *canonical* not brought into disrepute, when they are themselves acting in a criminal capacity, bringing the *linux* trademark into disrepute by illegally distributing linux kernel source code after they lost their right to do so under the GPLv2, by including the (binary) incompatible ZFS kernel module?

Slashdot Top Deals

Uncertain fortune is thoroughly mastered by the equity of the calculation. - Blaise Pascal

Working...