Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:virtue signaling (Score 1) 477

While I admit that I don't like the SJW type (and I'm inclined to believe you are one), when I use certain words I do usually put in an attempt to use their normal meaning, and neither I nor anybody else needs your help to explain what words I was really using. Your pathetic attempt to reinterpret my text, and in the process put in a few cheap shots on my person, suggests you are feeling threatened, which in turn indicates I came entirely too close to the truth for comfort.

You should learn to let people speak for themselves, not not try to speak for them. You should learn to listen to what they say, without reinterpreting it to mean something else. And you most definitely should respect whatever people do, if they themselves choose to do so of their free will - seek it out, in fact.

In the meantime, I choose to exercise my right to raise my voice in support of the developer who was fired (and presumably had his life ruined by all his friends, family, colleagues, etc. learning about his non-mainstream sexual preference). And I add the following statement, which means exactly what it says: you're a wanker.

Comment Re:I think they don't understand (Score 3, Insightful) 477

You don't understand. Social Justice is all about power: the power to tell others how to live their lives, how to act, how to speak. It's certainly not about making the world a better place. And conformance won't mean you will be left alone or even tolerated, it just means they will find something else to control you with.

So this guy is into an alternative lifestyle. Good for him, I say. Now his fellow developers support him. That makes them good people too, in my book.

Comment Re:Health Care (Score 3, Insightful) 903

What does it matter if it's your employer paying it directly, or paying the money to you and you paying it? The route the money takes shouldn't make a difference.

I live in the Netherlands. The lowest tax bracket here is 36%, which seems surprisingly close to the 37% we ended up with in the table. The highest bracket is 52%, and it kicks in at around 67000 euro (i.e. it's not just for the extremely rich).

But then there is another sum which must be payed by the employer. This is income-dependent, but it's not counted as income tax. Why? This money is directly related to my income, so what could it be, other than an income tax?

"Ah, but this second sum is paid by the employer, so it isn't income tax!" Well, I've got news for you: the first sum is also directly paid by my employer to the government. I never get to see or touch that money. I just hear about it in reports, stating that I sponsored the government for an appallingly large figure.

So yeah, all in all I'm going to go with "we pay a lot more than 37%", and that makes me suspect the other figures in the report as well.

Comment Well, duh - it is (Score 3, Informative) 315

C++ is much better than C. It's much greater expressiveness makes it easy to clearly formulate what you are doing, and in far fewer lines of code too. Exceptions free you from all that tedious boilerplate, where every function call basically expands into three lines: error=function();if (error) handle_error (error);. RAII makes resource handling painless. It's massively more powerful standard library provide instant access to lots of useful datastructures and algorithms, and unlike C it's all typesafe too.

Is it hard to use? Hardly. I find C hard to use - just imagine having to write an application that uses strings, it'll be one giant mass of mallocs, strcats, strcpys, frees (don't forget any!), and will invariably end in buffer overflows and lost memory. Oh, and it will probably have a whole bunch of gotos for what they laughingly call 'resource management', Dijkstra's 1968 paper notwithstanding.

Do I disagree with all the criticism, then? No - but the horror stories that get posted here do tend to be worst possible cases, which pop up once in a very long while, rather than the daily occurrences some people make them out to be. It's been... I don't know, half a decade or so? since I last saw one of those horrifying template errors - and it's not for lack of templates in my code. It's not really a hard language either - sure, you _can_ write unreadable statements, but you can do that in any language so that doesn't mean much. It also gives you the tools to write much, much clearer code.

I always roll my eyes when people mention needing a 'cut-down C++'. That's lack of understanding, usually mixed with a liberal dose of unwarranted fear, and better advise would be "use common sense". For example, there is nothing wrong with overloading operators, but common sense indicates one should not change the meaning of those operators. Having your own number-like class is fine (for example, for complex numbers, bignums, money, whatever), and overloading operators for it is an excellent idea. Using operator+ to paint a widget or retrieve data from a database - maybe not so much.

So, yeah, C++ is an amazing language. Hmm, that makes me wonder if there will be an article on Medium now, revealing that someone on Slashdot just said that. I don't know that website, maybe they are not into clickbait so much...

Comment Re:It's not universal if it's not for everyone (Score 3, Insightful) 300

Yes, that is crazy, and I'll tell you why. We already have social security, and that money is already being paid to those people. So what makes UBI different? Well, it mostly appears to be two things: the fact that it is universal, and that no demands are being made on participants. So we test that, and our test parameters will be as follows:

1. It is not universal.
2. The demand being made on participants is that they already qualify for social security benefits.

So what, exactly, are we testing here? What the new name looks like? Because that is all it is.

Comment It's not universal if it's not for everyone (Score 4, Insightful) 300

UBI is always defined as "everyone gets money, no questions asked". It is, in fact, the main selling point: apparently we spend more money on civil servants to figure out who is supposed to receive any money, than that we would spend just giving money to everyone, ridiculous as that may sound.

If you then go and look at all those programs, you quickly find that they are not for everyone at all: these are programs for small numbers of people, people who were preselected by the government because they are already in social programs anyway. There is nothing universal about any of this; these people are already on benefits as is, and the only thing that is changing is that society is making even less demands on their precious time. For example, the people in this program in the Netherlands will not have to apply for jobs anymore - i.e. they won't have to make any effort to stand on their own two legs again anymore, the rest of us will pay for them for life.

Whether this is an enlightened policy, or if society is simply writing off the most problematic people in a humane way, I'll leave for you to decide... But at any rate, it has nothing to do with a _universal_ basic income.

Oh, and the rest of us weren't asked whether we actually want to pay for the upkeep of these people. Personally I don't mind supporting people who are temporarily in a bad situation, or who through circumstances outside their own control cannot get a job. But should we also be supporting people who are certainly capable of working, yet choose not to? Should we, as a society, have families around where being unemployed and on benefits is a lifestyle choice going back three generations? I say we build some container villages. Give them a central kitchen, let them have food and shelter, and no more. If they want any luxury beyond this, let them go out and work for it, like the rest of us.

Comment Re:Not a Microsoft Issue (Score 1) 236

Google Chrome product manager Paul Irish, posting to a thread on Hacker News, said, "Chrome is doing the full rendering lifecycle (style, paint, layers) every 16ms when it should be only doing that work at a 500ms interval. I'm confident that the engineers working on Chrome's style components can sort this out, but it'll take a little bit of work."

Why on earth would anything with a simple static 2D interface need to repaint every single frame? Yes, we can have nice animations - but does it really also need to refresh when no actual animation is going on? What madness is this? Who on earth writes a 2D gui framework and decides to just repaint at 60Hz whether the application is idle or not?

At any rate, this goes a long way to explaining where our computer power went. Apparently selectively refreshing the screen, and only doing so when necessary, are no longer a thing. Bloody hell, I have my own GUI framework that I carefully optimized not to do any unnecessary drawing because that tends to be expensive, and other people are doing _this_? Either I am mad, or they are.

Oh, and since we are here. Last night I noticed Firefox occasionally moving text on an otherwise static screen. It looked very much like there were two rendering engines competing who was going to have the last word on positioning the text, with parts of sentences shifting back and forth by a single pixel every second. Madness, I say...

Slashdot Top Deals

The bogosity meter just pegged.