Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Almost Pointless (Score 1) 218

While writing out the tedious models and actually proving the run time is a ridiculous waste of time in many circumstances, most good developers (with an actual CS background) can come up with a Big O, Theta, and Omega with only a little bit of analysis on the algorithm in question. I personally consider it at all times when writing and modifying code, but I do the complexity in my head for a good ballpark more than anything. Is it always necessary? Probably not always, but especially given the high availability and tight computing times the systems I work on need I would rather do this up front then crash a damn airport system and delay thousands of passengers and flights potentially.

I went through all that way back in algorithms in college and I had a professor who had a fucking math doctorate with a dissertation and study focus on algorithmic run-time analysis. I have actually written out a full proof maybe twice since then (one of those was just a thought exercise) and used a recurrence relation once. I don't advocate anyone go through that hell on the regular, but one should be familiar enough to come up with at least a rough time (and in some cases spacial) complexity with a reasonable analysis of the code.

Now I do agree with many people that layering in 75 lines of code to reduce the run from O(nlogn) to O(n) is probably a waste most of the time especially considering how unmaintainable that algorithm would likely become.

Comment Re:sounds bad. is it? (Score 1) 383

Only sort of (I've actually looked into technical specs on some GPS stuff). The problem with a lot of them is fine grain GPS to that level requires a LOT of power and a fairly strong signal. You are correct that they can get a pretty good idea of what lane you are in (although on a single lane two way street, which is more what I was picturing, this gets into a grey area). Since the power requirements are pretty high and most any navigation equipment has an accelerometer it can be easier to just use a little lower grain GPS and use the speed and compass data to determine direction. I don't know if all of them do that since it would depend on the software implementation, but I know at least some do.

Power is not as much of an issue on the autonomous cars obviously, but signal is a serious concern. GPS is an extremely weak signal designed to travel very long distances. GPS jammers are actually really cheap and easy to make because of this (all they do is blast white noise on the frequency, nothing technical to them beyond simple physics). I would imagine because of this it would be a very bad idea to rely entirely on the GPS for position on the street, especially when GPS signal can get lost even in very urban areas for fairly large stretches of road.

Comment Re:Hit & Run (Score 1) 383

I disagree if they know that the risk is there for this to happen. It is gross negligence to allow that. Ford sure the fuck knew the Pinto would burst into flames if it were rear ended at certain speeds, and because of this when they put it out anyway it was their ass for doing it.

If Uber didn't know, it gets into a grey area simply because with engineering (especially software) even when you take every reasonable precaution things can still go wrong. I would bet BIG though that Uber has not taken reasonable precaution (hence why these things can't even reliably follow basic traffic laws) and very much doesn't care. The more I hear about this company the more they sound like a damn Bond villian with the slowest and lamest plot to fuck up the world. They clearly have a great idea with the business, but damn they must have a made a deal with Satan to think of it and he stipulated they can't have a moral conscious.

Comment Re:sounds bad. is it? (Score 2) 383

If they don't identify lines then how the hell would it identify the center line so its not just driving all over the road careening from object to object as it tries not to hit something... The car HAS to be able to identify things in the context we see them simply because there are other drivers (and cyclist in this case) on the road that are operating that way. We are in a very strange time with autonomous vehicles simply because we have the technology to make them a reality (albeit after much development and testing), but the economics will not make it practical for the end goal of the entire road being autonomous vehicles for some time (if it gets there in our lifetimes even).

The vehicles therefore must operate like a human would otherwise it creates much greater complications on the road, such as the car just driving anywhere on the payment so long as it isn't going to hit something and its driving in the right direction (hell, the only reason the GPS knows what side of the street you are on in the display is because you are moving in a specific direction). If it worked like that it could easily drive down the wrong side of a street and make oncoming cars start swerving or acting sporadically because this thing is not operating within the normal parameters of driving conditions. The car may even not realize this because the sensors don't see anything its going to hit or even more fun it does exactly like I said earlier and simply careens from obstacle to obstacle as it tries not to hit things.

These are more extreme examples, but the same thing applies to the bikes. Are there flaws in the way bike lanes are designed? Probably, but if a car violates a law governing that you bet your ass their are liable whether a human did it or the car itself did. The only way our roads work at all is there are certain expectations of how everyone is supposed to operate (hence why people get mad and cuss/flip people off when someone acts outside those conditions).

Comment Re:Solution: install open source firmware (Score 1) 147

DD-WRT actually has much better feature support than the stock firmware for most of the Netgear line. Their menu's are way easier to navigate too... Mine is very stable (been running for over a year on it) and from the research I've done anything in the R6000 and R7000 line is this way, and they absolutely support ac very well (dual bandwidth on mine, and newer versions actually support directional focusing if the hardware can handle it.

Comment Re: Netgear *firmware* (Score 1) 147

While you can't do a bridge mode because the shitty firmware they use doesn't have it, you can turn the DMZ on and forward everything to a router behind it. I know, because that is how my network is setup right now. My Netgear router running DD-WRT is MUCH more secure then the shit the provide for software (Netgear and AT&T). Love Netgear's hardware, but their firmware blows ass.

Comment Re:Agile is good for some teams & projects, ho (Score 1) 332

Absolutely. I actually get sideways with people that think one specific method, language, or tool is so good that it should always be used no matter what. Flexibility is key not only in code but on the business side of software development. Getting good with more common languages/methods/tools/etc. is great in the sense that they will be used more often, but anyone that has an almost religious devotion to these one thing may succeed with it in short term (and there are still too many that believe this) but eventually a problem will come along that needs something else and they are will try to force the proverbial squares into circle holes.

Comment Re:Agile is good for some teams & projects, ho (Score 1) 332

As I stated in my other post, if design reviews and early on demonstrations are done a lot of that can be mitigated in a waterfall project. I concede (and wouldn't really ever say otherwise) that some things will fall through the cracks, but my statement was that can happen in an agile environment too even though it probably happens less. I mean hell, sometimes even customers can be pushed by hyped up posts about new technologies (see: the cloud when it first got popular...) that they really don't need but someone wrote an impassioned article and they get convinced that it just has to happen right now.

Comment Re:Agile is good for some teams & projects, ho (Score 1) 332

This also depends strongly on the project management style and customer demonstrations. Generally I get change orders for plenty of things before the software ever hits site. This is because we do design reviews throughout the project, we have a live Factory Acceptance Test with customer in a simulated and emulated environment, and we specifically structure things so that we can get requests for change earlier. Now, granted the type of system I am installing can't be piece mealed out therefore we are somewhat pigeon-holed into waterfall, but with better transparency and avoiding developers all working in silos this isn't such a problem.

Some of our core development is done more in agile style with feature specs, sprints, and such, but if a common sense approach is used waterfall does not have to be so back loaded and so much more expensive. I would argue a lot of those problems come from large organizations that allow their gears to grind much too slowly and they isolate people so that they don't actually look at the overall business problem they are trying to solve (so that they can predict what parts of the code need to be more flexible).

Granted in some scenarios I do feel agile is more well suited, because it is a good thing to allow the user to get more hands on time with the end features so things can be tested and retooled if it isn't what they want, but a project can still be managed in waterfall style as long as proper measures are taken throughout the process, at least in my opinion. I know some people are married to one style or the other, but I can't help that.

Comment Re:Agile is good for some teams & projects, ho (Score 1) 332

I disagree. Working at a primarily waterfall based company we have lots of change orders after systems go into production and as long as the code was designed well there really isn't an issue with adding new features. Sure, there are occasionally the huge changes that some customer decided they couldn't live without, but those types of changes hurt agile shops too. The problem you describe and "solve" is designing overly rigid code, not "agile is better than waterfall."

Comment Re:What a pity (Score 1) 130

No I work at a privately held company. I do however agree a lot of that is wasted on what amounts to corner case extremes. The large majority of these people will split themselves eventually out of necessity, just like in times past. I've seen a few that came into companies (a couple at one of our other offices even) that really needed to split, but once the company actually started asking real things of them it was a sink or swim situation and most swam (albeit with some growing pains).

There absolutely are some crazy extreme cases (the handful I have heard where parents go to job interviews for kids come to mind), but they are way overblown and definitely not the norm. Most decent companies won't let that crap fly anyway (I know we won't, I conduct some interviews now and if that happened I would walk out and ask HR if it was a joke), and even if they did, there is absolutely no way they will make it in the environment at large. Dumping money into such a small group is extremely alarmist and frivolous imho, especially when it will resolve itself.

I won't deny that it is difficult to ignore some of the studies and data considering our general reliance on experts in fields analyzing complex trends, but this one strikes me as incorrect. Especially given we don't have the same data to compare from all the previous generations in the same manner, they are trying way too hard to explain it when, to me, it is just part of the cycle of the generations and growing up.

Comment Re:What a pity (Score 1) 130

I disagree that the problems are as widespread as we are lead to believe. Working off of your same anecdotal evidence, at my office I have the opposite experience. Most of the developers I am working with at this point are of the millenial generation (in my office at least) and with two notable exceptions (they are *closer* to the stereotype, but not full fledged), are extremely hard working, very intelligent, and not entitled/delusion. Hell, one of my co-workers that I am still friends with just moved on to working at Microsoft as a full time senior support engineer and is excelling at his job.

Maybe it is a thing of culture, or even area, but my experience and the 'counter-research' concludes in the other direction as well. Honestly we can probably argue this both directions all day, and while I respect your experiences/opinions I stand by my statements that a large portion of this is blown out of proportion and isn't any different than previous generations. I remember specifically growing up and hearing the same stuff about GenXers and my parents can remember the same thing about the Baby Boomer generation. I've seen bad apples, I've seen ridiculous parents, I've seen entitled asshats, but I don't accept this even as the slight majority of experiences.

My post was a bit of a rant, but you can't deny that it has gotten very old how many of the previous generations just want to bash on mine. It gets old hearing it over and over again, especially when I feel this is unfair to people such as myself and many of my friends (see: not all, some of them are idiots...). I do not believe we are even close to perfect, but as I stated we're not really any different than the previous generations and just want a fair shake. Maybe you have given some of these people that fair shake and they just blew it, but not everyone

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.