Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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:Too bad Muslim terrorists don't go on strike (Score 1) 52

Terror attacks are rare in the US because we've kept the terrorists out. Now there's a concerted effort to ship terrorists to the western world. Europe has changed from attacks being just as rare as here, to attacks being common. Let's not have that here. Islamic terrorists killed over 22,000 people last year, and it's an ongoing and increasing campaign. Keep the attacks here rare, please.

Comment Re: Thanks Hillary! (Score 1) 104

Most people misunderstand Citizens United. It actually helps level the playing field. I can't buy an ad spot big enough to matter, but if there are a bunch of like-minded people who can pool are money, we can. The alternative is the far-reaching political speech is limited to the likes of Jeff Bezos, who can buy an entire newspaper (this was the norm in the age of the robber barons).

Comment Re:Huh? I use these all the time. (Score 1) 186

This gets down to something that used to be a common UI design principle before software became so feature-ful it became impractical: manifest interface.

The idea of a manifest interface (which also is a principle in language and API design) is that if the software has a capability you should be able to see it. You shouldn't have to root around to stumble upon it. Tabs follow this principle; there's enough visual and behavioral cues to suggest that you need to click on a tab. The little "x" in the tab also follows this principle.

But context menus you access by right-clicking break this rule, which means that there may be millions of people laboriously clicking on "x" after "x", unaware that they can make all the extraneous tabs in their browser disappear with just two clicks.

This, by the way, is why Macintoshes were designed with one button on the mouse. But even Mac UI designers couldn't get by with just single and double-click, so you have option-click too, bit by in large you could operate most programs without it.

Anyhow, to make sure people know about this kind of feature, your program is going to have to watch their behavior and suggest they try right clicking. But that way lies Clippy...

Comment Re:never understood removing features (Score 3, Interesting) 186

Removing features simply because they're not used by everyone every single day never made sense to me. Even if it is something only a very small percentage of users use, so what?

Because a lot of people get confused by too much information and too many options. And contrary to nerds they won't simply dismiss what they don't need they tend to avoid it saying it's too difficult. I'm not surprised if Google has analyzed that they'll lose 0.1% tech savvy users and gain 0.2% computer newbies instead. A case study: My online bank.

They used to have rather information dense pages and complex filters and dialogs with lots of cross links to related functions. I loved it, you had pretty much everything you wanted to see, do or go to at your fingertips. My parents, well they used it because I used it and having free support was more valuable than trying some other bank. They redesigned, far more simple pages. Far more hierarchies and less directly accessible functions. I hated it, at the time I mostly blamed it on designing for cell phones and tablets not big computer monitors.

But then I saw how my parents liked it much, much better than before. They said it was so much simpler and less confusing to use. Even though they never used but the first two options, it was far simpler to choose from three than eight and the rest hidden under "more options". The transcript page used to have lots of filters, now by default it has account and period, with the period being predefined like "last 30 days" or whole months with custom dates hidden another layer down.

And it turns out, that's all they really use. if they ever wonder if they did pay the power bill of $100 in the first two weeks of January they wouldn't filter by recipient and amount and date. They'd just scan the monthly statements manually. I'm thinking this and this applies, sure they could learn how to make the computer do more but is is worth it? Considering how little they seem to remember of the basics, I'm thinking neither the investment nor the upkeep is worth it.

So I can totally understand why, the question is do you have to only cater to my parents. But when push comes to shove, I'll manage to do five clicks instead of two just fine even though I'm slightly annoyed by it. My parents though, for them it makes a real difference. Unless it's really a professional's tool that you work in many hours a day, I'll always survive doing it the slightly harder way like just X'ing out all the tabs or hitting Ctrl-W repeatedly without being a make-or-break deal. It would be nice if we could have a browser by nerds, for nerds though. Maybe it's time for a new Phoenix?

Comment Re: Evil bugs (Score 1) 213

Fundamental library code is either as fast as possible, or useless. You know know who or how the library code will be used, so you have to assume plentiful use cases where every instruction matters. The std::map code is particularly bad (even in CLANG) .

When you're delivering the end product, sure, don't optimize until proven necessary. That's a different world than library code. Not every thing is your thing, surprising as that may be.

Comment Re:They're going to lose a lot of good people. (Score 1) 289

My point was: you can't call here a bad CEO, because bad CEOs destroy companies, often quite quickly.

Stock price is the best guess of people good at financial analysis of the future financial prospects of a company. The wisdom of that crowd is generally better than you'd think. Of course, where they're wrong, there's lots of money to be made.

Comment Re: Thanks Hillary! (Score 1) 104

Were fundamentally blocked, I'd say, partly on ideological purity, but more on the fundamental corruption of the federal government: it exists mostly to protect the financial interests of the establishment donors. Globalism is great for multinational corporations. Open borders are great for those who can afford to travel to Europe on a whim.

Our government has been stable a long time serving those interests, and now, with that challenged (and thus the primary focus of all the back rooms), issues of actual like what to do about health care, are getting minimal efforts, mostly retreaded bad ideas.

Comment Re:All too true (Score 5, Insightful) 213

I came here to say this, mostly.

I *know* that there are plenty of places in our software that I could spend an hour or two, and rewrite an algorithm to run in 1/5th the time. And I don't care at all, because the cost is too low to measure, and usually, performance bottlenecks are elsewhere.

Who really cares if I can get a loop to run in 800ns instead of 1500ns, when the real bottleneck is a complex SQL query 11 lines up that joins 11 tables together and takes 3 full seconds to run?

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 199

No. No, I was right the first time. You can't own something that doesn't exist; and patents do server the purpose of forcing dissemination of information in exchange for temporary protection.

If you had said "creation in exchange for a temporary monopoly" I'd at least be willing to discuss it. But the vast, vast majority of patented creations would be picked apart and reverse engineered in no time flat if patents didn't exist. I dare you to show me one patent made in the 21st century that you think contains a trade secret that would take more than 20 years to figure out given that it was actually used in a product, service or production process.

Comment The proof would disprove itself (Score 2) 334

If we can calculate how reality "should" act, we've per definition calculated how to simulate it. So the only thing we could catch is a bad simulation. But that would assume they don't have error margins, if we start looking at something with an electron microscope then it starts simulating that particular part of reality to that detail. Just like a pair of VR glasses doesn't have to simulate more than I can see.

Comment Re: It is just a decent thing to do (Score 1) 39

Don't want fraudulent items, make them in your own country.

You're either a (lame) troll, or utterly clueless about how quickly knock-offs are created based on nothing more than things like product photos on the designer's web site. All a knock-off company has to do is place an order for an item (and return it, later - free access!) in order to inspect it closely enough to make a sellable ripoff version. No, not every knock off (or even most of them) is made by scam artists at the factory making the original, and brand owners are increasingly able to police that since that practice became more prevalent over the last few years.

Comment Hm, time to check out that reddit source code... (Score 1) 123

Soon we will need to host our subs elsewhere. Quite coincidentally, I was just about to start doing that in order to host a private sub, so this doesn't even add an action item to my to-do list. :/

It is kind of weird how out of touch the reddit management is with the users, if they think this will increase, rather than decrease, the number of participants. The reason reddit _works_ is that it's not a social network and they don't sniff your butt all the time the way facebook does. Sigh.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.