Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:Actually no. (Score 2) 80

Sorry, but you're wrong. The remark is about the performance. 79% means nothing without knowing the baseline of an uninformed method. I think you can agree that a coin toss will produce the proper result in 50% of all cases. So if the performance of a system on a binary choice is 50%, it's as good as a coin toss, no matter how it's implemented. Suppose you make a system that always prints "plaintiff wins". Then its performance will be the actual win rate for the plaintiff. If that happens to be 79%, the system's performance is 79% without any knowledge.

How representative the sample set is, is another question all together.

BTW, the actual numbers for 2015 are

Refused: 2930
Granted: 3433
Denied: 588
Total: 6951

So granted is 85% of all cases. So a system just printing "granted" will perform better (if refused is left out of consideration).

Comment Re:Patch, reboot (Score 1) 1042

According to Elon Musk, we must be in a nested simulation: if the odds that we don't live in one is 1 in a billion, why would those odds be any different for our simulators? And then up and up and up, until we reach the point where (1-1/1000000000)^n is acceptably low.

What ever made him say such a stupid thing?

Comment Re:bad substrate, adds nothing (Score 1) 173

As far as I can tell, Have has exactly the same shortcomings as Go, but with a slightly different syntax. I don't care about indentation vs block markers (I prefer begin ... end, but there's enough vitriol already), but all Have does is put struct functions inside the struct instead of outside (with the ugly func (s *struct) syntax). Go's approach has an advantage, Have's too, but it's all very cosmetic.

The Go language is indeed limited: I see it as an odd mixture between Java and C, a Java-- if you want: no OOP, no generics, automatic memory management. It does offer easier multi-threading than either. So Go offers a lot of protection against typical C bugs, but performs better than Java. It's therefore a sane choice if you want to write low-level-ish applications, where performance matters, and you don't want to spend dev time doing your own memory management.

Personally, I find Rust very interesting, but it's a bitch when it comes to rewriting old code in it. I would love to do a bigger project in it, though, to get a better feel for it.

Comment Re:Has slashdot comments too (Score 1) 612

That's such a polarized view.

First, you don't, or rather, shouldn't vote for a person based on your interpretation of that person's image, but rather on how you think he or she would represent your views (in this case as a president).

Second: treason? Millions of deaths? You surely must know you're exaggerating.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score 1) 349

I agree with your surprise, but reviewers often look how an article fits with their own pet theories, or political allegiances. They only try to destroy it contradicts them. And many magazines allow you to propose a list of reviewers. The result is that quite a few articles just slip through.

It's often easier to kill a paper because its methods are sloppy or because not all steps have been thoroughly tested than to actually verify the data and the way it's been processed. The latter can take weeks or months in the case of a complex study, and reviewers have a few hours. So even then nobody looks at the data.

Comment Re:No problem (Score 1) 164

You really are part of the problem, aren't you? You first have this passive aggressive "YOU MUST BACK THIS UP OR ELSE" attitude, and then casually admit that it's true, but it's not Google's fault. And that's ignoring the absolutely non-backed-up statement about iOS.

Are you sure there's nothing Google can do? Are you sure Google doesn't have agreements with phone manufacturers about customizaton? Are you sure Google doesn't own the trademark for Android and can forbid basically anyone of labeling their phone an Android phone? Well, no, you are not. So Google could just as easily have started to force them to provide updates. But no, that would not be in the shareholder's interest.

And you get a +5 informative. Really. The levels of corporate shilling are astonishing.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Confound these ancestors.... They've stolen our best ideas!" - Ben Jonson