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


Forgot your password?
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 Re:Slower than what reference point? (Score 1) 255

I disagree with rarely obvious. For example, I've inherited C# code before where the code performs thousands of type conversions in a loop - i.e. string to integer, and does so using a method that throws an exception (i.e. Int32.Parse) when there are exceptionless alternatives available (i.e. Int32.TryParse).

In cases like this is simply obvious that the exception throwing and catching solution is wholly sub-optimal, it's performance is worse by several orders of magnitude, with no benefit to be obtained whatsoever - it's not even more readable, or more maintainble, it's just outright bad.

This is just one example, but there are many cases I've seen over the years where there is just an objectively superior way of doing things that can save on all resources - CPU, memory, and improve by all metrics - readability, maintainability, security.

Mostly, these problems arise because of inexperienced programmers such that an experienced programmer can implement an all-round superior solution.

Comment Drone-Killer Drone (Score 1) 318

The solution is probably already being developed in a defense lab somewhere.

Instead of wasting a US$3.4 million missile, you deploy a force of 10 hunter-killer drones worth maybe US$100,000 each to patrol a given area.
Much like a Roomba, they know when to come back to recharge or switch battery packs. They never get tired or bored and don't complain about the MREs and missing the kids at home.
They have sensor suites for detecting other drones and can be notified by ground forces of sightings.

Not quite sure what kind of package they could be fitted with to take down another drone but I'm sure there are plenty of cheap off-the-shelf options.

Comment Re: Contraditions in the Same Sentence (Score 1) 91

Okay, look I get it, your understanding of adventure is being so utterly desperate that any change to your life is good.

My understanding of adventure is hiking across Svalbard, where polar bears roam, diving with things bigger than me like sperm whales in the Azores, basking sharks in Scotland, and whale sharks in Indonesia, going on a field trip in Eastern Brazil and discovering previously unknown species of cacti to science. Next year is diving with marine Iguanas in the Galapagos, the year after I'll be diving under the North Pole.

I get that you can't comprehend what real adventure is, that you're probably jealous, which feeds your necessity to stalk me into completely separate threads to continue telling me how you believe that being adventurous is the same as suffering a desperate need for change because you're one of life's failures.

That's all fine, but the fact remains that you're still ultimately the problem here - it's not my fault your life is shit, it's not my fault you're jealous, it's not my fault that you don't know what real actual adventure looks like because you've never experienced it. Keep telling yourself otherwise all you want, but that won't change the fact that it's all still entirely your problem, and that you'll still remain completely wrong whilst you keep up your victim mentality of it being everyone elses fault.

If you ever do manage to achieve something with your life, and do actually manage to travel properly, meet different people, in different cultures, you'll eventually understand why it's important to understand that you might not always be right, until then you'll continue to be a bitter pretender that spends his life being wrong on the internet. Good luck whichever path you choose.

Comment Re: Contraditions in the Same Sentence (Score 1) 91

"No it isn't. I've traveled extensively, lived in four separate countries (for longer than a year), and each time there were compromises. Some things were worse, some were better, but overall each was more interesting than staying put."

Yes, because your situation was bad enough for that to be the case in the first place, mine isn't, many people's isn't. Fine, you're right, if your life if fucked then absolutely any move is going to be good on balance, but not all of us are in such a negative situation.

"I'm a person, I moved for more interest. I threw away a regular income, and everything I own to try something different and I know a *lot* of others that did the same. Maybe you just hang out with boring people or maybe just old, but I assure you there are millions of people out there who live for adventure, even if it means they have to get their hair wet."

Nope, more assumptions, all wrong. What you're really saying is that your life was terrible enough that it didn't matter what you did, again, I'm not in that situation. I'm happy with my life, I'd still like it to be better, everyone wants their life to be better, but I don't want it to be worse - you obviously were at such a low point that it couldn't get any worse so it didn't matter. We're not all fuckups though.

"Or not interesting enough. And you don't have to change everything only some things. You've made it clear you'll only move if pretty much everything is the same. That's fine, but a lot of people think differently to you."

No, I made it clear I'd move if it was a net improvement, that's not the same thing - for you it is, and I understand that, if your life was terrible that nothing could be worse which is the entire implication of your argument then fine, but again, we're not all in that situation.

"Based on what you've told us about yourself. "Must haves: Same sized house, same income, same commute", your words friend..."

Different climate, different way of life, different activities, different culture, different people, different job. What bit of that argument threw you? Oh the selective reading bit, I see.

"No we've been over this already. Repeating lies won't make them any more true."

Selective reading. Go back to the start of the thread and try again. You've dug yourself so far down the rabbit hole of false assumptions and invalid arguments that you can't even remember what the thread was about.

Now do fuck off, I really don't care how much you want to tell me about how terrible things are for you that you'll take anything over your existing pathetic life even if it means meandering into a completely irrelevant thread - I'll give you a hint, Slashdot shuts down conversations after a while precisely because sometimes it's just time to shut the fuck up and stop being wrong about something indefintely, now take the hint.

Comment What a crock of BULLSHIT! Cherry picked at that. (Score 4, Interesting) 289

First of all, trying to untie Koran from the Bible doesn't really work cause it contains the same damn stories and same damn people.
Only real difference being that Jesus is not the son of god but just another prophet.
So that "Islam by one hand" is a crock of shit regardless if that one hand is Allah's or Uthman's as you put it.

Second, saying shit like that "Islam is the work of one man. (Not counting nameless scribes, no one ever credits them.)" is basically proof that you don't know jack shit about Islam.
Or you would have known of hadith.
Which is basically an attempt to expand the Koran after the death of its writer - by compiling quotes attributed to him by various sources.
All of which are specifically and strictly credited because... well... some might choose not to believe some sources.

There are many flavors of Islam. Just like with Judaism or Christianity
Painting it with a generalization-brush of "one Islam by one hand", particularly in today's climate of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS EXAMPLES of Shia-Sunni divisions is beyond ignorant or retarded.

Third turd... Just like the Bible which was not written in modern languages it suffers from transcription and translation errors.
Which compound when most of the text is metaphoric in nature - as is the case with all religious texts.
Saying it is consistent requires more than just belief - it requires blind faith.

Fourth... The Bible is plentiful with DIRECT commands to murder anyone from witches and gays to infidels.
And both Koran and Bible, old testament and new give even more reasons for hate and murder of everyone.

Fifth... Islam is as "compatible with the civilized world" as any ancient religion, cooked up by schizophrenic hermits in a cave, desert or jungle somewhere, edited by lunatics, crooks and child molesters and left "unchanged" for thousands of years.
You know... like all those flavors of Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism...

Not that newer religions cooked up by loons and crooks are any better!
Mormonism, Scientology and Moonism are the same kind of shit.
Just with fewer genocides to their name.
So far.

Comment Re:The Dutch were justified (Score 1) 289

That's because whether you're a Turk in the Netherlands or a white American in Mexico or Asia, you are nothing more than a guest.
Therefore, you have no right to participate in the workings of your host and your political activity with regard to your former homeland is tolerable only to the extent it creates no disturbances for your host.

By that logic, they should also pay no taxes.

What? You never heard of "No taxation without representation"?
And why would you tax your guests? Just what kind of a host are you? What's next? Paying for food and lodging?

Oh wait... did you perhaps mean "slaves" but mistyped it as "guests"?
Cause that's what you're describing. Foreign citizens with no rights. I.e. Slaves.

Comment You forgot the Fascist+Inquisition bits... (Score 5, Insightful) 289


This is what the PVV will do:

1. De-islamize the Netherlands
- Zero asylum seekers and no immigrants anymore from Islamic countries: close the borders
- Withdraw all asylum residence permits which have already been granted for specific periods, close the asylum centers
- No Islamic headscarves in public functions
- Prohibition of other Islamic expressions which violate public order
- Preventive detention of radical Muslims
- Denaturalization and expulsion of criminals with a dual nationality
- Jihadists who went to Syria will not be allow to return to the Netherlands
- Close all mosques and Islamic schools, ban the Koran
2. The Netherlands independent again. Leave the EU
3. Direct democracy: a binding referendum, power to the citizens
4. Completely abolish health care deductibles
5. Lower housing fees
6. Retirement age at 65, indexation of supplementary pensions
7. No public money for development aid, windmills, art, innovation, broadcasting, etc.
8. Rollback cuts in home care and elderly care, more hands on the bed
9. A lot of extra money for defense and police
10. Lower income taxes
11. Halving of car taxes

Banning books, closing churches, abolishing healthcare, canceling representative democracy while amassing more power, militarization + police state, no more public money for freeloaders like artists, engineers, media and "etc." - but hey... free money and cheap cars!
And according to his back of the envelope calculation - it will cost nothing.
He actually tries to balance the budget by guesstimating costs for things like "De-islamize the Netherlands" - which according to him will create 7.2 billion Euros.

Cause " Islamic headscarves in public functions" cost money. You wouldn't think it does... but you aren't thinking it through.
Cause when you let the women start wearing scarves, they're gonna keep buying scarves until their closets are bursting with scarves - and then they'll just buy more closets.
Those things are made out of silk too, you know? That shit ain't cheap.

Comment Re: Contraditions in the Same Sentence (Score 1) 91

I think that was Berners Lee's point - that we need to figure out how to do it. Your view is that it's impossible because we've not managed to do it yet, but that's no the point - it's not about what we can already do, it's about what we want to be able to do. Just because we haven't done something doesn't mean we can't do something.

There is a lot of scope to improve on this sort of project using machine learning, if for example you produce an objective data set of stories that have high veracity vs. some that as you suggest have high collusion but low veracity then you could use ML techniques to judge going forward.

You'd probably end up with some kind of trust rating that grows or erodes over time, coupled with topic competence. So say for example Gamergate - you'd typically see that gaming websites have zero trust rating when it comes to politics because they have no background in that field, this would push other news organisations above them that do have competence in the field of politics but they wouldn't have much advantage because they wouldn't have much experience in gaming. This would in turn push sites like Slashdot up the rankings for subjects like this because it has a good history of both gaming and politics forcing the user comments disputing the press view into much more public view.

This is just a stab in the dark of course, but the point is that I wouldn't say it's impossible, just because it hasn't yet been done.

Comment Re:Don't bother - the money is poor and weather sh (Score 1) 195

"Most people I know who moved (and I know a fair few) moved because they wanted to try something different. Not to do exactly the same thing, or a perception of a better life, merely something that is more interesting. You are clearly not one of them, you've made that point clear."

Nonsense, you're still grasping at straws. Your whole argument is based on the misguided assumption that if you want an equivalent quality of life then you're not wanting to do something different. That's patently false, it's possible to still want the same size house, the same salary, and same commute to work whilst indulging in a completely different culture and lifestyle outside of that.

You're fundamentally wrong - people don't move to do something different, they move to make their lives better. Sometimes, that involves changing everything, like moving from a cramped inner city London flat to a much larger accommodation in New Zealand, for less money. In other cases, that means maintaining the same high level of living and salary, whilst achieving a better work life balance, better weather, a better political climate, a friendlier culture, and a much more fulfilling lifestyle outside of work.

People only move to change absolutely everything, when absolutely everything in their life is shit. That's not the case for everyone, some of us have no problem with some elements of their lives, but still wish to change others. You're ironically making judgements about my travelling experiences, my acceptance of change and so forth without having any idea about me, and in turn you're getting your entire points completely and utterly wrong as a result.

As I said before, you're just grasping at straws to try and tell yourself that you're correct, and failing miserably at every turn because the simple fact is that you are instead completely wrong. You tried to defend a comment that was simply false - a suggestion that a move to NZ will always leave you with a bigger house, I've explained why that's not true, and if you still don't want to accept it that's fine. But at least recognise the irony in suggesting someone doesn't like change, when you can't even change your mind about whether you were correct about something so utterly trivial as a minor point made on the internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.