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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Good For Her ! (Score 1) 150

It's all about share-holder value. Even hers. She found a buyer and saved coin. So she made ~$200 mil. Good for her.

To me Yahoo! always seemed doomed. The Microsoft bid ~8 years ago shed Yahoo in a bad light - a company struggling to stay on top against Google and Bing. At the time I wondered why MS would want Yahoo - didn't seem like a good fit. Yahoo was buying search results and not making them (or being paid to send requests to MS) - Search as a Service? okay - the engine isn't the special sauce, but the data is (who searched for what).

She did the best with what she had. We can all argue whether Verizon is going to be a good fit. But Time-Warner bought AOL bought Netscape ( Netscape who? yeah that was only the biggest thing on the web). But was it TW the bad steward? AOL? the mix? Or did Netscape implode and buzzards bought the carcase? (I think they imploded having no product). Could Yahoo really have been turned around - or does it need a corp overlord like Verizon to make it happen. Is Yahoo really a standalone company or a bunch of product subdivisions.

This is where I think Yahoo was headed. AOL like it, and Compuserve, and that Apple thing (yeah - remember Apple had one too - can't remember the name). Things come and go. Maybe Verizon can find a home for it - the name Yahoo! might be worth something (someday).

Like Circuit City !!!

Comment Re:Functional could be next - maybe (Score 1) 405

har har har..

No - what I meant was... they need to develop an (overly) intimate understanding of what the code is trying to achieve.

In most programming languages I can quickly understand the purpose and make a change. Maybe there's some concept like "functional density" which is "Low" in a language like C# and very "high" in F#. Therefore I can make non-functionality changes in C# that serve little purpose and unlikely to have side-affects because lots of code is crap to fill whitespace. But functional languages lack "white-space-code" :-)

I will add that I've achieved a lot more functionality quickly using R & Python. My implementation of an internal utility was ~50 lines in Python vs the existing utility written in C# which was easily near ~500 lines. Granted I pulled in a lot of modules so the total size was larger -- but my effort was small to achieve the same goal. Same thing with my R programs.

The only reason I can't say the same with F# is that I have a (relatively) lower number of hours in it.

Comment Functional could be next - maybe (Score 1) 405

Functional programming is getting better. I use lambdas in C# all the time, sometimes in Python too (although I don't like the syntax), and I've tried them in Java. In C#/Java/et al they are fabulous ways to focus on the Functionality and not the Implementation (what the heck is this FOR loop doing?).

Pure functional has problems that will be solved. Jet.com is based on F# (the whole website and backend - yes a bit of C# here and there). Now could be the time to jump in - while being aware that patterns and practice are an emerging area and there will be growing pains.

I've been using F# and R for over a year now. F# caused me to suffer from a problem that early OOP/C++ programming had - methods/layers that hid too much and made debugging difficult because it wasn't clear where it went wrong. Plus the syntax of these languages can be confusing, and procedural languages (C#/++/Java) work the way we "think" "step1 - do this, step2 - do that" Functional focuses on the end product and not the steps in between. Beyond different syntax, we need to think differently.

I've found myself passing too many arguments "down" to the layers (again - something early OOP suffered from). The promise of altering the lower implementation layers without affecting top-level code hasn't panned out. I've had a bit better luck with R but the problems I'm solving are different. F# has been a "real" program and R has been computation of stats (grab data and compute min/max/avg). OOP solved it through better patterns such as ambient properties and policy injection, possibly OCP (which is NOT a functional solution). I'm finding the readability of code to be difficult (esp this Javascript nested stuff -- seems like using the wrong tool for the job, as in, I want to program like this and let's' see what's in the web toolbox... Javascript it is).

While I like F# my biggest mind-bender has been around function composition. The idea of magic params that the runtime simply solves causes a lot of "magic" to occur that isn't obvious to the coder. Yes - shorter code. However, the next person must spend time reading and understanding the code before being able to make changes that doesn't break the implementation. Again - the OOP problem. To read an F# function and wonder "where'd param 3 come from?" or "where *does* param 3 come from?" Quite possibly new patterns that must be learned.

So I say - give it a try. Learn a new language.

Comment Re:I couldn't get past "how do you write a game"? (Score 1) 405

Microsoft created a game on XBox using F#. So it is possible. There's an F# compatible release of XNA. I can't remember the game - maybe "Go" ?

Hunt in DotNetRocks for the topic - there have been multiple episodes over the years discussing this. Google "XBox F#" - there's a slideshare on the topic.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 3, Interesting) 354

Which reminds me --- Coca Cola pulled out of the Cold Drink effort with Keurig. After product launch it all tanked. --- again they forgot to test the market. Nobody wanted to pay a big price for the machine, have it occupy counter space, and then fork over about the same money as a can of soda costs.

oh- and everyone is getting wise to health and sugar -- and that they should drink less soda.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 354

One must ask --- Why not just buy a carton of "fresh" juice from the many "Naked" drink companies?

This doesn't sound like the Jack LaLanne Juicer thingy (which sells for $150). I think the Premium Experience folks ran amok on this one- those Tech Billionaires must have thought "yeah I'd drop $400 on this" but forgot to test the market. I personally don't need another kitchen gadget - let alone a $400 one.

My friend used to have a coffee maker that you filled with beans and it would drop in & grind one serving on demand. Seemed cool and was expensive. After using it while visiting for a week I can't imaging a IoT angle to it. I just put my cup under it and pressed "go"

Submission + - Inside the Glowing-Plant Startup That Just Gave up Its Quest (backchannel.com)

mirandakatz writes: Back in 2013, the internet was abuzz over a startup that promised Kickstarter backers that it would create a plant that could grow brightly enough to one day replace street lights. The Kickstarter raised half a million dollars, and the controversy was great enough that Kickstarter wound up banning all future synthetic biology projects. But Taxa Biotechnologies was never able to create that much-hyped glowing plant—and last night, they announced that they're officially giving up on the dream. At Backchannel, Signe Brewster has a deep dive into what went wrong, and why biohacking is still such a fraught, complex realm.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 344

Sure - show me the work - fair enough. There are lots of citations available - sorry this isn't wikipedia.

For example - Alan Alda covered this on Scientific American Frontiers when he visited the Ford driving simulator. Part of the show had him carrying out tasks while driving so that the viewer could get an idea of what distractions looks like.

It is known that the brain devotes more effort to listening to a phone call than listening to kids in the backseat. Probably because there's pressure to pay attention to the phone call where as you can ignore the children - or scream "shut up !!" at them...but not your boss on the phone.

An article from 2014 shows the same: https://www.scientificamerican...

This is an area of research. IBM even prototyped a driving assistant that could monitor the outside world and disable your phone to "turn down" the distraction level. Hey - talking on a quiet long straight country road vs rush-hour traffic in LA has a different impact-of-risk. Make a mistake in the country and...well probably nothing happens..maybe kill a bunny.

But that isn't the point of all of this -- it is distracted driving and people don't believe it or are willing to accept the risk.

Comment Re:They could have done better with the data (Score 1) 344

Unfortunately the scientific data does not agree with your opinion.

The issue isn't whether this is dangerous - science says it is. People want to take this risk. Heavy drinking will kill your liver - yet people still binge drink (and you might be surprised to find out how low # of drinks that defines binge). Don't eat sugar - most have a Mountain Dew in their hand right now. It doesn't matter that a Church van gets whacked by a texting driver and kills many -- not in my backyard.

No matter the number of studies telling of the risks - people will continue to believe that they are above average and that they can operate a cell phone while driving. Years ago I wondered how talking on the phone stacks up against "fiddling with radio, talking to passenger, eating snack" - and turns out talking on the phone is more dangerous for several reasons. One - your participant is not in the car with you. When talking to a passenger - they too can see a sticky situation coming up and will curb the conversation along with the driver. Also people tend to devote more focus on phone conversations than they would say...eating a snack.

IBM once put forward a system that could monitor the road, traffic density, and other attributes and plug that into the cell phone. Diverting calls to voice-mail if you had the brakes on, or heavy traffic etc. The more dangerous the situation and it would lock out external distractions.

Companies like Ford have tested this in their driving simulators. They know. My father has a GM with a navigation system that can't be operated while the car is in motion..... and I'll tell you what.. it is the most frustrating feature ever. I just pull out my phone or Garmin and think....why th' f* pay $1500 for a lousy nav system that you can't use.

Submission + - SPAM: Can Parents Sue If Their Kid Is Born With the 'Wrong' DNA?

randomErr writes: In a fascinating legal case out of Singapore, the country's Supreme Court ruled that this situation doesn't just constitute medical malpractice. The fertility clinic, the court recently ruled, must pay the parents 30% of upkeep costs for the child for a loss of 'genetic affinity.' In other words, the clinic must pay the parents' child support not only because they made a terrible medical mistake, but because the child didn't wind up with the right genes.

“It’s suggesting that the child itself has something wrong with it, genetically, and that it has monetary value attached to it,” Todd Kuiken, a senior research scholar with the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, told Gizmodo. “They attached damages to the genetic makeup of the child, rather than the mistake. That’s the part that makes it uncomfortable. This can take you in all sort of fucked up directions.”

Comment one up - 64 oz of soda !!! (Score 1) 370

I went with my brother years ago. He wanted the "32oz bottomless cup of cola" for $1 more --- and managed to finish it before the previews were over. He ran out for his free refill - sat down and slowly drank it as the movie began.

He then missed most of the second half because he kept leaving to pee.

Lots of violations to that list: Cola in the Dark vs Focus. Plus I was disrupted and had to fill in plot details later.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!

Working...