Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Have you read published papers? (Score 1) 313

Most published papers are so condensed with so many steps in the process brushed over it is not straight forward to actually recreate it. The devil is in the details is the apt description of the process of actually implementing something. Insignificant details which are not important in describing the concepts and results can be essential for implementation. Sometimes luck, skill and sometimes there is a bit of trial of and error which does not get described. Sure, there is an assumption of skill level but even so, it can waste plenty of time and introduce errors in the process. I'm not saying it should be like software; however, software always reproduces results (including the bugs.) To be fair, software runs on machines, not humans.

Journals are no longer printed and distributed. We shouldn't be trying to condense so much to save space (still being concise is important.)

I'm just bringing up another issue. Also, simplistic idiotic metrics applied to publishing does not promote quality work. Quantity is rewarded and how many times it is cited. This promotes vague conceptual work that is more broadly applicable.

We should have well edited larger summaries; followed by longer more detailed procedures. Since almost nobody will recreate, the summaries will likely be used most and then a quick skimming of parts of the details... it's that skimming part that is probably why the details are condensed so much. Even two experts will differ slightly on how they condense the details... look at how much variation we have in textbooks describing in detail the SAME information.

Comment Parental Controls? (Score 1) 641

Am I the only one who can see this resulting in Parental Car Controls?

Am I the only one who thinks it is nuts that we even could come to that? Children driving cars??

We trash our democracy over a few thousand dead people but when it comes to cars killing 40k PER YEAR we do nothing. I wouldn't let anybody under 18 drive and would be so hard on 18-21 that most wouldn't be eligible. I would also do serious yearly testing on everybody on the other side of the accident bell curve (retired people.)

My WW2 war hero neighbor smashed into a big yellow school bus and claimed he didn't see it! Turns out he was more truthful than he realized-- he was classified as legally blind afterwards because the cop did something which required the test. He was bitter about it too--- he claimed he saw good enough to drive but I think he was just pissed it was an Asian cop... you see, he thought all Asians were Japs and he still hated the Japanese.

Comment Misunderstood: socialism IS everywhere (Score 2) 722

Capitalism claims to benefit the most people overall than other systems which is a socialist argument!
Socialism is actually used to justify capitalism. The problem is that so much propagandizing has been done that people see it only in extreme examples; and unfortunately people don't explore things in depth regardless of it's importance.

Making people suffer, starve, and die because they refuse to work is foolish as well as inhumane. Those people will cause hardships and increase costs to society. While some people will be criminals anyway, everybody will become a criminal if you make life bad enough for them.

The REASON for UBI is that it is more adaptable to whatever comes in the future and it eliminates a huge about of overhead managing a that area of the welfare system. The political flaws and human societal flaws probably make implementing and managing a good welfare system for much time impossible. So, designing a system which avoids human and political weakness should be priority. UBI is such a system-- it's simplistic so even a voter can understand it and it's harder to propagandize against. The more overhead and corruption the better UBI does. It is not perfect but what is?

Most people I find against UBI should actually be for it. Instead of mindless government policies and systems to baby hopeless people; hand them an income and it's their own fault if they mess up. Every welfare system has a hard time balancing so that it does not become a TRAP which punishes those trying to get out of it.

Human flaws will always have the top protecting their ASSets feeling entitled as well and putting themselves above others. The middle class is always a hybrid of both the poor and the upper classes; afraid to rock the boat except when it may take away from their earned entitlements and often they will defend the rich because they may move upward someday. The better society does the bigger the middle class will be and in turn the more they will neglect proper management of the system if not accelerate it towards despotism (the inevitable death of all democracies.) Therefore, systems should be designed around the human flaws of a successful society.

Comment intentional (Score 1) 722

Opposition promotes policies which create that situation in order to undermine it and give them more standing in attacking it. If you can't win, sabotage. These are complex problems with multiple facets which must be adjusted after implementation as well as dynamically adjusted with changing times. Competent leaders could probably find the balance and over time find enough of a pattern to perfect the balancing process for others to learn but there are constant roadblocks as well as incompetence. Including the public who's culture has shifted away from being able to tackle complexity and continues to do so as reality becomes just another perception to manage.

Take the USA, with their "obamacare" which people hate but most people like the ACA which is the same thing by another name. The system is so broken only half measures which skirt out real issues are possible and then don't last because any flaws in those can not be patched. Progress is minimal and temporary at best; it's all perception management - like the corporations who hire PR firms and lawyers instead of recalls... even if the recall might be cost the same (got to keep up your image!) I would argue that a 70% improvement could be managed into being negligible to the majority of the voting public. In the USA, it's so bad I bed about 30% wouldn't acknowledge a 100% perfect solution. Given how half vote... that 30% can be an electoral majority. Remember people act more out of opposition than out of support.

Comment Productivity is bad (Score 0) 359

Seriously? You think eliminating 1000 trucks didn't cost some jobs?

So then why do they need to hire more people or raise wages when they SAVED MONEY? Somebody got a relatively small bonus and the shareholders gained. They already have IT who came up with this in the first place. No need to hire more. The big savings was not FUEL it was in fewer trucks and drivers which by comparison dwarfs the fuel costs. They wouldn't have much savings if they kept those idle employees.

Yeah, like robotic claws on garbage trucks didn't eliminate half the garbage men (which was a decent wage job.) I never saw my garbage costs go down either... maybe they stayed flat longer as a result.

Comment 2 Stories I've heard (Score 1) 594

I am in a union which does work for me; good management is what matters most not the system itself.

I have heard of 2 other unions from active members where the union was corrupted-- but what people leave out is that management can corrupt the union leadership. Both the two I heard about made deals long ago with management which set the system to promote corrupt ineffective union management. I wouldn't be surprised if there were not manuals available on how to weaken and destroy unions because both stories I heard sounded the same. Letting union leadership get money from management and then alter the process under which management is selected and compensated... is a bad sign; they try to make sure no reformers get in charge of the union again.

Comment whoosh! guess that went over heads (Score 1) 156

Venus and planetary science have a historical role in global warming. I thought I'd quote some big "skeptics" and swap out earth for venus to make a satirical point. You need not know the history to get the point.

Moderators must have taken it seriously... guess I have to make it funny or something.

Comment It's a FRAUD to make money for greedy scientists! (Score 0) 156

With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that the greenhouse gas heated Venus is the second greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?

This is a conspiracy to waste money inventing expensive devices to explore a hot planet when it is in fact a freezing cold planet as evidenced by the huge amount of reflected solar radiation it can not be as hot as these "so called scientists" claim it is.

Just go to Fox News and find out for yourself!

Comment I'll bite (Score 1) 173

Just off the top of my head:

1) I've NEVER heard of a data cable standard which could have cheap cables burnout the expensive equipment at either end. It should be IMPOSSIBLE for a damaged or cheap USB 3 cable or power supply to burn out any gear; the protections should exist on the devices but not to the point that apparently we need today in this new standard. Yes, I realize some people have made USB1/2/3 adapters which run AC or tasers into the connection-- that doesn't count as reasonable. (but such things should be sold given how many publicly accessible ports exist out there; there ought to be extra products to address unreasonable situations.)

2) No color coding or shape or anything between thunderbolt, HDMI, usb 3, or whatever other thing they find to jam over that plug. So my USB cable won't work for thunderbolt because it's not an active cable-- how do I know if it's an active cable? or a thunderbolt port? a tiny logo that hopefully hasn't rubbed off. just great.
consumers can FIT SQUARE PLUG INTO SQUARE HOLE and FIT ROUND PLUG INTO ROUND HOLE.... a young age... even chimps. Now we have to read tiny logos to figure this out? OK- let me get this clear... you make a NEW plug which can be upside down to help consumers... but you make this plug have 3 major variations on how it can be used which the consumer has to memorize?!

3) security. thunderbolt is basically an external PCI connection. I shouldn't care about security for it. But USB devices are trusted all the time they should be checked and protected... That is another topic-- but now my USB and thunderbolt ports are the SAME and it's confusing. So... we'll have fake USB devices which exploit thunderbolt...

Comment Limitations for bad programmers (Score 1) 600

Good programmers may not be commonplace and that in itself might be to reason to ban freedom and make everything as constrained and idiot proof as possible... I'm not one of those people... I am for formal language "modes" where you can specify your skill level. Then GOTOs can be forbidden except for those who have an approved skill level.

As we should all know, loop and if constructs are merely specialized use cases for GOTO. Not every situation has been abstracted into a safe language construct. C lacks the ability to break out of nested loops, same with C++. One has to work around the language constraints adding complexity and performance loss. Now adding an argument maybe a label could have provided another abstraction for another GOTO use case for specifying the loop to jump to.

Exception handling is another abstraction use case for GOTO. Along with the "come from" event model we use which is especially awkward in async and parallel situations. These continue to have poor abstractions that add complication trying to do things that a GOTO or an evolved GOTO would address. I'm saying we should leave power tools around for those who know how to use them so that better abstractions can be created for the lesser programmers. Exceptions being a great example which really couldn't be done without an evolved GOTO but behind the scenes language programmers did all the difficult work. For async event callback coding we currently have kind of a mess everywhere with Java 8 being an impressive hack but only to bring it into the same mess.

How about call back closure situations where you flip the situation and have the code block until the async completes but it jumps to a function or up the call stack for the idle running code. Quite often you have the a where you just want to spawn async tasks and the response to the async task belongs right next to it (hence the popularity of closures.) So now you don't have closures, it just blocks and life is easier "the fork in execution" instead is jumping to the idle code instead of jumping to the callback code. Do I make myself clear? The OS does this already for processes-- your process blocks without any concerns and the OS shifts processing elsewhere.

Comment Even a broken clock gets it right... (Score 1) 834

Even a broken clock gets the time right twice per day!

Too bad the 2nd right thing won't be dismantling most the CIA (doesn't anybody wonder what they told him? or showed him? ) At least he could have died trying to do something important. H1B hacks need fixing badly but are not really important ... just to some of us they are.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (6) Them bats is smart; they use radar.