Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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) 266

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 Re:There is at least one big difference (Score 1) 412

Energy and the rules about creation of new energy are contained with the Universe. We have no clue how this would function outside of the Universe. Maybe there's an infinite supply of energy there - more than enough to spawn billions of Universes. Maybe the normal rules of physics don't apply (quite likely, actually) and creating a Universe winds up kicking off a process that spawns two more Universes. I'm not sure how testable any of this is - that's a question for physicists - but you certainly can't discount a multiverse because it would use up all the energy in the Universe.

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 Re:The real problem is ISALM (Score 2) 289

As an American Jew, I see the efforts to give religion a stronger role in the USA's government and it frightens me. First of all, the religion that's pushed is always Christianity so I'd become a second class citizen unless I decided to worship Christ. Not that I'd support it if Judaism was the "official religion", mind you, because of my second point which is that I've seen where "Religion And State Are Mixed" ends up and it's never good. Historically speaking, we Americans fled from such a system. (The King of England ran the Church of England and you basically needed to be a member of that church to participate in government.) The Founding Fathers wisely saw the problems with this and wanted a Separation of Church and State. They didn't want religion mucking in government or vice versa. Which brings me to the third point. Anyone who wants to mix religion and government is foolish because it goes both ways. Do you really want the GOVERNMENT having a say in how you worship? Or telling you what your clergy must do to be Official Government Church Clergy? Or how your holidays are celebrated? I would think that the same people who want government out of their lives in other aspects would be frightened about having the government dictate their religious practices. Of course, looping back to my first point, when people in favor of this picture "church and state mixed", they picture THEIR form of religion running the show. Replace their religion with someone else's, though, and suddenly they're opposed to this horrible government overreach. As long as they get to impose their will on others, it's fine but they won't stand for anyone else doing the same to them.

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.

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

No, I think you're assuming this process requires some person to make arbitrary decisions. That's not the case.

What he's talking about is creating smarter algorithms that weight content based on it's veracity such that stories with little to no veracity aren't given the same or higher prominence as stories with high veracity.

That is, given that stories have to be ranked (we can't place them at the same place on a page or you'd not be able to decipher it as they'd all be on top of it) then they should be ranked based on their veracity - how verifiable the content within those stories is.

So effectively algorithms have now reached a point where they're able to interpret content to categorise it and so forth, they now need to take the next step and begin to try to verify content by cross referencing it with other sources and so on and so forth.

As such there's no contradiction, just a request that the companies that act as the front end to most people's people's internet experience do a better job of separating fact from fiction so that when someone searches for something they get something that's objectively true before they get something that's fiction. That's not censorship, that's better ranking of data based on relevance so that irrelevant fiction can no longer get away with pretending to be relevant truth when it's simply not.

This, for what it's worth, would greatly improve journalism, as it would force news sites to make damn sure that they're telling the truth and can back that up before publishing a story that otherwise may or may not be true.

Comment Re:Focus on a few key things (Score 1) 347

Have you read these books yourself out of interest?

I ask because I looked over The Pragmatic Programmer again myself a year or two ago and was horrified at how poorly it's aged. Some of what it professes is frankly just outright bad practice nowadays so if you haven't re-evaluated it I'd suggest scrapping it from your required reading list.

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

Again, I think you're making assumptions. Britain is without a doubt a nation full of travellers, but again a massive portion of the population doesn't travel, which is precisely why a majority voted for Brexit - those people who voted for Brexit are, the vast majority of the time, precisely the type of people who are poorly travelled. Those people weren't bothered by things like the currency tanking because they rarely step outside their own little neighbourhoods, let alone the country. These are your classic little England types.

I'm an internationalist by any measure, that is in my blood precisely because I am well travelled, and precisely because I do hate this country and like taking every opportunity I can to leave it. I also couldn't get away with being timid even if I wanted to; when you reach senior levels in business you just can't get away with that. I've hiked inside the arctic circle, I've dived multiple places throughout 4 of the 5 oceans, and I've discovered new populations of plant species in South America and I'm barely into my 30s. I've no problem with travelling and being adventurous but to do that requires disposable income.

So it's precisely for that reason the idea of spending more on my mortgage to get an equivalently sized house in New Zealand and in turn sacrificing my ability to travel put me off the idea of moving in the first place. By staying here I keep my standard of living including my ability to travel to the places I've always wanted to go (Scuba diving in places like the Galapagos isn't a cheap past time), which is precisely my point - if I move to NZ and get an equivalently sized house I sacrifice precisely the ability to travel.

You seem to be stabbing in the dark with all sorts of ideas to justify why you think it's correct to assume that moving from the UK to New Zealand will always leave you better off, whilst missing the more obvious resolution to your paradox - that your preconceived notion is simply incorrect. Most such emigration myths are based on the classic fallacy of believing the grass is always greener, but as always the reality is far more nuanced.

As an aside, you may start seeing less Brits when you travel going forward, certainly in France last August, and the West Indies a few weeks ago there were far less of my fellow countrymen than I'm used to seeing. There were more Americans than usual, presumably because of the currently over-valued dollar.

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

It's the case for many millions of other Brits because you still have well over 30 million people living outside the big cities and the majority of them do so because they can get bigger houses there than they can in the cities. The idea that commuters like me are rare and unusual is simply false, villages such as that I live in are almost entirely populated by people like me, the exceptions are the local plumber, the local post office owner, a couple of farmers, and the local shop owner. Rural Britain is absolutely full of these commuters villages now, and these commuter villages are in high demand and also full, to the extent that the government has been outright planning areas of green belt to be built on to build new garden towns for commuters.

Of those people living in villages such as mine, there are of course some who could benefit from a move to New Zealand - the farmers, the plumber and so forth, but for the majority of us living in these villages they're still going to be in the exact same situation as me.

So yes, for someone stuck in the painfully small accommodation in inner city areas New Zealand is going to be a fantastic improvement in quality of life for them - but here's the problem, so is moving to a commuter city in the UK. If like me, you've already done that, then the jump to New Zealand just isn't that great and again, yes, there most definitely are millions of Brits living in commuter towns like I do simply because it's the only way you can get a decent sized house without being a multi-millionaire.

Again, I think you're basing your understand of life in the UK on arbitrary averages found in publications that are far from scientific, and that's misguiding your understanding of what life is like in the UK.

For what it's worth the problem I have with moving isn't just with New Zealand - my wife is Canadian so we considered moving there too, but I don't want to deal with the shit winters they get, so Western Canada is the best bet, and yet Vancouver has the exact same house price problems that Auckland does.

So many people move countries without thinking it through or looking into it, and then just end up moving back to their place of origin within a year or two, and it's precisely because of the type of issue I'm describing here - it's not always as straightforward and inherently great as people think. There are compromises - for me, if I do move to New Zealand I will be accepting that decrease in house space, but I'll be living in a country with a far more progressive political climate, with far greater future prospects, far better schooling if we decide to have kids, and for me, better weather and far better places to scuba dive. As I said - it's not that I'm saying NZ is bad or doesn't have it's upsides, just that house space isn't one of them and yes, that does in fact apply to the millions of us Brits who already have nice houses in commuter towns which the government is building more of because of demand.

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

"Of course you can, as I stated if you look beyond public transport as you only transport option. I live more than 45 public transport minutes from my office, but I cut that travel time in half by riding a motorbike. By doing this, I get a bigger house, and you could too."

Right, but that means giving up the ability to do anything on my commute, so it's already causing a difference in terms of quality of life meaning we're no longer comparing like for like. Even outside of public transport though there are still major issues with traffic in Auckland.

"The average house size in Britain outside of London is only 89m2:
I don't even know how you squeeze 3 bedrooms into 89m2. "

Well you've failed at reading comprehension here - the article says the average size of a new build three bedroom home is 89m^2. That ignores the fact that there are also plenty of 4 bedroom and upwards new build homes that are much larger coupled with a vast amount of existing housing stock that is also much larger. You've gone from using misleading stats, to now completely and utterly mis-representing stats. New build three bedroom homes are small because the government has been creating massive financial incentives for house building companies to build "affordable housing". The fact that building companies have then gone on to take those incentives and build "affordable housing" shouldn't really surprise anyone. It still says nothing about the average house size outside the UK's high density cities like London though which is drastically higher as evidence by my very own plot, the price I paid for it, and the price it's worth now.

"As I said in my original response, do you have examples you could provide? Because I think your opinion is not based on reality."

Yes, I provided one, the fact you choose to ignore it doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wilfully ignorant. I pointed out that I have a 5 bedroom detached house (we don't work on m^2 in the UK so I've never bothered to measure it, but it's like any decent sized detatched 5 bedroom house - good size kitchen, utility room, living room, dining room, double garage, en-suite, bathroom, study, sizeable attic for storage etc.). To move to Auckland to get an equivalent standard of living I can only get a 3 bedroom single floor detached house for the same money. This isn't just some guesswork or something, this was based on an actual plan to move coupled with thorough investigation of the housing, work, and commute options, before discovering this reality, that I wouldn't actually be able to have the same standard of living by moving there. A move to NZ is great for relatively unskilled workers because you can just move to rural New Zealand where they need plumbers, brick layers and so forth and get a massive increase in the standard of living, but for people like me with a very specific, sought after but in limited geographic areas, well paid skillset, I can't do better by going to New Zealand, I have to downsize, or pay substantially more.

Whether you want to listen to my anecdote or not is really irrelevant, it doesn't change the reality. Bask in wilful ignorance if you want by denying that reality, but that's not really my problem.

I'll give you a hint though, if New Zealand was this perfect wonderland, where everything is unquestionably better, then why are they working so hard to get people like me over and have been for decades? If it was so clear cut they'd have closed their skill shortage long ago - they haven't because people like me realise the dream falters a bit when it collides with reality. If you want to keep on dreaming though, then go for it. I haven't given up completely on the idea of moving to get out of this increasingly shit country, but whether it's New Zealand or somewhere else is now a lot more up in the air - when I first thought about it New Zealand was the clear cut choice until I looked into the reality of it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.