Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

typodupeerror
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 Catherine the Great's Mathematician? (Score 3, Insightful)133

Do we really need to invoke Catherine the Great's name to help explain who Leonhard "one-of-the-greatest-mathematician's-of-all-time" Euler was? For me it would be more like "Catherine the Great, a sponsor of the legendary Euler, also happened to do some notable things while leading Russia".

## Comment Re:Now all we need is ... (Score 1)198

From my short visit to Belgium it didn't even seem like the main choice of condiment for fries anyways, but just one possibility of many. After I followed a local's lead and tried tartar sauce with fries I think I found a winner.

## Comment Re:I could not agree more (Score 1)1001

Not inserting - insertion sort. Reading more about this insertion sort and bubble sort would perform exactly the same on an already sorted list; they'd basically be doing the exact same thing. On a list that is nearly sorted, insertion sort tends to do better as well. See the Performance section on the Wikipedia entry to bubble sort for details.

## Comment Re:I could not agree more (Score 1)1001

No moves in memory happen with either bubble or insertion sort. The difference is the number of comparisons, which also count towards N. With bubble sort on a sorted list the numbers of comparisons, and thus steps, are O(N^2). With insertion sort for the same list the comparisons (also without moves) are O(N).

## Comment Re:I could not agree more (Score 1)1001

Sorry, but I still don't see how this would be faster than insertion sort in this case. With bubble sort you first go through all n elements to bubble up the largest of them. If it's sorted you go through them all and nothing is moved. Then do the same for n-1 elements, then n-2, etc. until you're done.

With insertion sort you insert the 2nd element into a list of 1. It's already sorted, so nothing happens. Move to the 3rd element to insert into the list of 2. 2nd element is already less than 3 so, again, nothing to do. And so on until you do nothing starting at the nth element. Bubble sort version has n^2 steps (times some constant) when it's already sorted. Insertion has just n times constant.

## Comment Re:I could not agree more (Score 1)1001

Sorting something that has been sorted previously and is most likely still sorted? Best choice.

Errrr... no. Insertion sort would kill it in this case. The only case I've heard of where bubble sort is preferrable would be when random access to sorting elements is an issue.

## Comment Re:I could not agree more (Score 2)1001

But bubble sort is a horrendous sorting algorithm with no practical applications. You do not, under any circumstances, need to know it. Seriously, a first-timer making up their own sorting algorithm tends to rediscover selection sort, and that's better than bubble sort.

## Comment Re:Am I the only one? (Score 1)139

It is possible to get news from multiple sources. BBC. Jerusalem Post. Al Jazeera. RT. And others.

But aren't they all biased? Yes, they are. Just like CNN, MSNBC or FoxNews.

Well CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are (apart from their biases) pretty light-weight, sensationalized sources of news. (And really, MSNBC and Fox News are the ones that are unapologetically biased).

BBC is good, Al Jazeera can be good, though I've seen some sesationalized stuff from them as well. RT is just Russia's propaganda network. Utter crap.

## Comment Re:Yes (Score 2)335

Well first of all, the word "cuck" is nothing more than modern code for "nigg3r-lover"*. It would be more honest if you used that term instead. No idea how sense that makes though. Anyone who criticizes Trump must be a nigg3r-lover? Seeing African-Americans as equal human beings is a no-no again? No clue.

I wasn't meaning this as a criticism for Trump anyhow. My only point is people who are in, or soon to acquire, a great deal of power have no right to say they are anti-establishment. I would hate to see this phrase used for Trump and his fellow Republicans during their reign. Because then they'd be making excuses whenever their choices were harmful for the country saying, "It wasn't us, it was that durn establishment!" Nigg3r please.

Judging by Trump's appointments full of people who are mostly unqualified or downright offensive, and continued tweets that indicate every criticism of him is taken personally - it doesn't look good. (I swear he thinks the most brilliant person he ever talked to is the last individual who happened to compliment him - LOL). The only good I saw was nominating James Mattis to Secretary of Defense. I also liked the fact that he talked to the leader of Taiwan, although most foreign affairs experts say this is a big no-no.

* Apparently the lameness filter is flagging the N-word, otherwise that's what I would have used. Goddammit.

## Comment Re:Yes (Score 1)335

That's horrible. Why anyone would judge someone talking bout "the mass importation of semi-retarded 3rd worlders for cheap labor for the corps" as stupid is beyond me. Clearly your are the voice of level-headed insight and reason...

## Comment Re:Yes (Score 1, Insightful)335

I think you no longer have the right to call yourself "anti-establishment" when your man is about to be POTUS and his party will have majorities in the House and Senate.

# Slashdot Top Deals

The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky

Working...