Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:conflicting theories? (Score 3, Interesting) 29

but a lot is going on in the classroom -- there is so much to look at inside it and out the window.

This is a little worrying, since we are told that a rich classroom environment stimulates the young mind. It almost sounds as if we should go back to the drab, austere, classrooms of past decades. That way the children will have few distractions and will be better able to pay attention to their teacher.

We've always known that distractions are the enemy of learning. The problem is that the most vocal proponents of any idea are themselves vacuous and unable to focus, hence they suggest stupid things like distracting environments and (being the most vocal) manage to get their way.

I recall a study that found that a touch of OCD contributed immensely to problem solving skills. This is because having just enough OCD to turn things over and over in your head (for days, if need be) allows the person to view all facets of a problem. Being easily distracted means that only superficial thought is put into a problem.

Solitude is necessary for depth when thinking.

Comment Re:liar (Score 3, Insightful) 349

How could you possibly interpret his statement like that? He supported the exposure of corruption when it was exposing corruption *with an even hand*. Once the exposure was applied only to one side of a partisan contest, it became insupportable.

Why bother making such ridiculous strawman statements? It's obviously not what the OP thinks. I doubt it's even what you think. It won't convince more than a handful of readers. What was the point?

Wait, what? If you don't expose all corruption then don't expose any? All this hand-waving about even-handedness is just an end-run around the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that WL had any evidence of corruption on Trumps part.

Besides, the media didn't treat the elections with an even hand, so why do you expect anyone else to?

Comment Re:liar (Score 4, Insightful) 349

My thoughts exactly. I once supported Wikileaks seeing it as a potentially powerful weapon against the high and mighty; Bankers, corrupt politicians, lobbyists, police states... But for some reason Wikileaks decided to target almost exclusively the United States, now even helping a political liability like Trump into power, playing into the hands of countries like Russia and China - enemies of freedoms and human rights.

Fuck Wikileaks and Assange.

So, you supported the exposure of corruption all the way until it exposed something you did not like?

Comment Re:So what. (Score 2) 296

Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.

It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.

It's a cost/benefit analysis.

You can either watch something once for $10-$20, or you can buy the DVD for $5 and watch it as many times as you want, lend it out to friends, swap the entire collection in the classifieds with someone who has a different collection, put it on repeat for kids (if it is a kids movie - they often watch the same movie multiple times)...

Paying $10-$20 for a once off use vs paying $5 for unlimited, repeated use. Whether we are talking about movies or coffee-brewing is irrelevant, what matters is whether the savings from the $5 repeated use justify the inconvenience.

To many (non-lazy) people, the advantages of disks far outweigh the inconveniences of disks. After all, getting up from your couch and walking three feet to your player is fairly convenient to most people.

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 461

So what you're saying is that transportation and energy use policies should be based upon a pretty infrequent set of scenarios. With that logic, why not build thirty lane highways to wine country, or fuck it, have a helicopter standing by?

No, what he is saying is that if you can only provide 50% coverage of the use-cases (average) you can pretty much expect that people will choose the cheaper 100% use-case coverage.

Seriously, why is this so hard for you to understand? You've basically spent the entire thread ranting that 95% use-case coverage is good enough for individuals.

Jumping 95% across a chasm is no good to an individual - you need to make it all the way or don't even attempt. Having 95% of the population able to jump a chasm is acceptable to the population. Having a single individual able to make it 95% across isn't acceptable to the individual.

Comment Re:It's about landmass (Score 1) 461

Everything I'm seeing in the way of urbanization, population density and commute statistics suggests that EVs would work in the large majority of scenarios in North America and Europe.

Some things are atomic. For example, I can't drive my car if only a large majority of it is functioning; for some things, satisfying 95% of the use cases still leaves that thing 100% useless.

With transportation (as a collective, not as an individual), a population can get by 100% with a cheap gasoline-only car, but only (say) 95% with an EV. With transportation for an individual, satisfying 95% of the uses cases means that the individual would prefer to simply by an equivalent car that can do the remaining 5% as well as the EV's 95% - i.e. a gasoline-only car.

Most people with an EV either have a second car or don't travel to places they can't buy a ticket to (bus/train/plane). Those people who prefer to own only a single car and often travel outside of mass-transit would prefer to get the ICE-car that satisfies 100% of their uses-cases for a car rather than an EV that satisfies 95% of their use-cases for a car.

Yes, there are outliers, and certainly there are scenarios that Americans regularly partake in which will push past EV limits, but to base an entire transportation strategy on scenarios that are either infrequent or in a very sharp minority seems utterly illogical to me.

It would seem illogical to you because you are not being logical. You are unreasonably assuming that people would take the more expensive option that does not meet all the use-cases that the cheaper option does.

Simply put, most people do not drive hundreds of miles in a single driving session per day, most people live in urban areas where average commute times are below 30 minutes and distances are in fact below 20 miles one way. It sounds to me like the majority of North Americans could drive EVs with little significant impact on day to day driving habits.

Maybe, but it is not their day-to-day transport needs that drives their purchase, it's that remote 5% of their transport needs that drive their purchase. For the population, 95% good enough is, well, good enough. For an individual, 95% good enough is going to lose to the cheaper option that is 100% good enough.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: Dealing with gaslighting colleague 3

An anonymous reader writes: What's the best unofficial way to deal with a gaslighting colleague? For those not familiar, I mean the definition from this link:

Gaslighting occurs at the workplace in the form of bullies unscheduling things you’ve scheduled, misplacing files and other items that you are working on and co-workers micro-managing you and being particularly critical of what you do and keeping it under their surveillance. They are watching you too much, implying or blatantly saying that you are doing things wrong when, in fact, you are not. As you can see, this is a competitive maneuver, a way of making you look bad so that they look good;

In addition to above, I'd add Poring over every source-code commit, and then criticising it even if the criticism is contradictory to what he previously said.

Raising things through the official channels is out of the question, as is confronting the colleague in question directly as he is considered something of a superstar engineer who has been in the company for decades and has much more influence than any ordinary engineer.

So, what do slashdotters recommend (other than leaving or escalating via the official channels)?

Comment Re:Accounting isn't what you think it is (Score 1) 370

Seriously? Quite a bit actually.

Then why don't you give at least one specific example.

Should $FOO go as OPEX in $BAR or CAPEX with a depreciation in $BAZ?

As hard as it is to believe, while a lot of the basic bookkeeping decisions are very rigidly structured, questions like the above are very much a matter of preference - it's possible for both paths to give the same basic fiscal result but for one path to be advantageous in one environment but not in another

Comment Re:depends (Score 1) 343

Since you seem to know it, explain me this: I have studied lisp for a while, and I never actually found that magic that suddenly made me much better than I was before. "You can redefine the language!", the ads said. I still don't get it: yes, I can add new functions. I can do the same thing in pretty much _every single other language out there_. Yes, I can pass code blocks to other code blocks. I can do that in other languages too, and only occasionally use it for some small code improvement - it's not a silver bullet that redefines how I write software. So, where is it, that magic you people keep talking about?

In Lisp you can do more than add new functions or pass blocks of code around. Maybe you didn't learn it well.

Comment Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score 1) 164

I'm pretty sure both books are routinely ignored.

The one book directly forms the basis of government and law in many countries; it is, indeed, routinely followed to the letter.

[snipped anecdotal evidence]

It is not the religion, per se, that is the problem. It is fundamentalists or extremists who claim to be part of the religion that are the problem.

In case you hadn't noticed, the fundamentalist followers of one of the books number so few that they are hardly a rounding error, while the fundamentalist followers of the other book (while still in a minority) comprise a significant percentage of the followers.

Your point that both the books prescribes barbarism is correct, your conclusion that both the religions are practiced in an equally barbaric manner is not.

Comment Re:SubjectIsSubject (Score 2, Interesting) 164

Quran (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

And I'm pretty sure that the Old Testament says that kids who sass their parents should be put to death. Not to mention the large number of "abominations" outside of being gay that are routinely ignored in Leviticus.

You are comparing a book that is routinely ignored with a book that is routinely followed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton