Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 148

The "international community" is a blend of supefyingly dull simpletons, hysterical dolts and Machiavellian assholes.
I completely agree.

Welcome my new Overlord! Where do you live that I come and praise you? Please bless me with your presents and put your hand on my head!

I'm just a worm in your presence ... please enlighten me!!

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 148

Japan has had no serious nuclear accidents; at least, not serious in terms of public safety.

You are an idiot.

Japan had 100ds of small nuclear incidents and plenty of them where close to become a disaster.
That is not reported at news in your country, because no one cares about Japan, in my country it is.

Go google ...

Your SF reactor I like to copy for my next game, please excuse me that I will build some hazards around your non working design.

Comment Re:Not bloody likely (Score 1) 120

"Alpha radiation" is always from a nuclear decay. That is how the discoverers "named" it.

An Alpha particle, is a helium core, an atom without electrons, an ion.

An cosmic alpha particle has energies that go far beyond your imagination. You don't shield them with a sheet of paper. Hence we gave them a different name "cosmic ray".

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 100

They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph.
Don't get your point.
In most civilized countries exactly this is forbidden. And I would bet in a big deal of the USA as well.
So just he can get away with it makes it not "common law" or even allowed by the law.

Minimum flight height is several hundred yards (depending on local legislation), unless you are spraying, in process of taking off or landing.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 284

Why are you so sure you can perceive all possible solutions?
Of course :D

I already described an example in the original post: object-level "classes" (on-click example).
Don't remember it, you should have reposted it.

I agree such is bloated, but again it's largely because of Java's weak OOP model
That claim makes no sense, and you never gave an example why it is "poor", what would be better?

Javas OO implementation is exactly like any other oo language with static typing the alternative is dynamic typing and on top of that class less.

And it sucks. JS also has a poor OOP model/syntax.
The syntax is like Java and C++, so don't make to many enemies. The model is dynamic typed and class less ... some people like that.

If one has better OOP features
There are no better OOP features or "less good " OOP features, either a language is OOP or it is not, and lambdas have at first nothing to do with it: however the second OO language, SmallTalk had lamdas as first class citizens.

(often because the language had sucky OOP).
Please stop this. You sound like a ranting child. Start do define what is sucky and what is not. Java is not perfect syntax wise, e.g. needing to write public or private in front of everything. But OO wise it is like any other single inheritance language. The only thing improving it would be real MI (which is a pain to implement, hence Java is moving to Mixins) and real templates and operator overloading. But the last two are not OO concepts anyway.

To get the discussion elsewhere, perhaps you should explain what kinds of OO you find sucky and how you would solve it and what kinds of OO you find less sucky ...

AGAIN: your whole post makes not much sense to me.

I've asked multiple people for concrete/realistic/actual examples of lambdas significantly improving things,
Then ask some one who is working in the topic? Why should a random OO programmer know where to improve his OO code with functional programming????????? Probably his OO code is just fine and there is nothing to improve? Facepalm ...

And again, get it or, quit the topic: OO and APIs have nothing to do with functional programming and Lambdas.

If you don't see the advantage that complicated several line constructs collapse to a one liner ... well, then you should go back to data bases and stop ranting about programming.

Comment Re:It's missing the full picture (Score 1) 198

My definition of energy is the one Physicists use.

The potential difference between anode and cathode should be 1.23 Volts, and the amount of Hydrogen you gain is directly proportional to the amount of charge you transfer between anode and cathode.

Proportional more or less yes, But not every electron moving through the apparatus is splitting a water molecule. For starters: you need to split two molecules and need up to 6 electrons for that to get 2H2 and 1O2. Plenty of electrons decide to just move through the apparatus and do nothing: hence you are far from 100% efficiency and hence the "energy" you have in the H2 and O2 later does not correspond to the total energy you used.

Then again you want at some point to revert the process somehow, with fuel cells you have at least a high enough energy conversion that it is worth it, and you get electricity ...

If you just burn it, you obviously get 100% of the energy in the chemical bounds back, BUT: in form of heat! And that heat you can only convert under normal laws of thermodynamics into work or electricity. With a loss of nearly 60%

Comment Re:Look a bit higher (Score 1) 100

Well, the law disagrees with you. It doesn't, however, work like people here think it does. There isn't a line in the sky saying "this far, no farther". It depends on the nature and intent of the intrusion.

For example I've flown in a helicopter belonging to the Florida Keys Mosquito Control district. Those spray jockeys' job is to lay down pesticide on hard to reach places, particularly the first place a mosquito might light after crossing between islands which is likely to be a line of mangroves or bushes. They're accustomed to flying *low*. En route between Stock Island and Marathon Key we flew so low over peoples' houses I could certainly have told what magazines they left out by the pool -- if we hadn't been going over 100 mph. It's just normal business for those guys, and they're not targeting those homeowners in any way. But if we'd hovered over his house to ogle his teenage daughter, that would be an intrusion, apart from the epic noise.

This isn't really different from privacy law in general: context and intent matter. If someone is standing behind you at the ATM, that's not necessarily breach of privacy; but if they are doing it to look over your shoulder that's different. If your neighbor looks at the back of your house, it's normal. If he sits in his tree trying to peer through your back windows, it's not.

One of the landmark cases in privacy was Nader v.General Motors Corp. where GM retaliated against Nader for writing unkind things about its cars by hiring private investigators to dig up dirt and intimidate Nader. One of the things they did to intimidate him was to follow him around all day, often openly following him a few feet behind as he went about his business so he'd know he was being constantly watched. The court ruled this was an invasion of privacy. Sure the PIs had a right to be in the places they went, but they didn't have a right to be there doing what they were doing.

Comment Re: It's OK to Not Tolerate Inteolerance (Score 1) 578

If you surveyed how many citizens would support law against hate speech, it would probably be a significant number. And prospective citizens as well. So I don't think the problem with your proposal has anything to do with people in favor of shari'a law. It would not work with plain Judeo-Christian European European-descended folks.

Comment Re:Superdistribution of Content (Score 1) 185

Generally it's from some stupid millennial, or the mouthpiece of a social networking company that offers a messaging feature that, for all intents and purposes, is email (except with centralization, censorship, advertising and data-mining). What they really mean is "we wish email were dead, so everyone would be forced to become one of our users and we could become the new defacto email".


Slashdot Top Deals

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb