A dog is no match for a cat in a fight. When a cat wants a space, you don't need a "smart" door to keep dogs out, the cat will do the job all on its own! Each dog needs to learn the lesson only once.
Well, let's see... - Because you want to know what pages of your site are being used, and which ones aren't. - Because you want to know what browsers you need to support, based on what your users are using. - Because you want to do A/B testing of a new feature. - Because you want to know minute-by-minute the load on your Web server.
If you are running a personal site, then yeah, who cares. But if you have lots of users, who complain when things don't work, you need analytics. And...Google Analytics is easy to implement and very rich in features, not to mention, free.
This is an excellent point! I hadn't considered this aspect before. One cannot effectively write code while listening to a person speaking, but it is possible to write code while listening to music. The same principle applies here.
Maybe. One problem will be that variable names are not words, they are made up, and often are a set of words strung together, often with random abbreviations. It's hard to imagine any voice recognition system being able to correctly spell such names correctly. I personally don't want to spell my variable names, letter by letter!
If you're trying to write code, or anything longer than a text message, you definitely still want to use a keyboard. Voice recognition has come a long way, but it's still a far cry less accurate than typing.
I'd guess that Android software is the number 1 use of Java these days. But Oracle says Google's version of "Java" doesn't count, and they have to stop using it. If they do that, Android developers will go where Google tells them to go, they won't stay behind to use the "pure" Java language from Oracle.
I actually do genetic matching, and have worked for Family Tree DNA. I can tell you that it is not at all possible for two unrelated people to be considered a "match," unless you are talking about very old tests that match only 12 data points.
Modern tests, including FTDNA's autosomal test, compares more than 700,000 markers. Thousands of these markers (SNPs) in a row must match, in order to be called a "match."
It is true that this method is still based on statistical probabilities, but the difference between unrelated people and related people is stark, when viewing these results. They not only can show whether two people are related, but also how closely they are related.
Family Tree DNA's algorithm does not use phenotype matching, it uses SNP matching. For a match to be considered positive, thousands of SNPs in a row must match. This type of matching is much more reliable than what you seem to have experienced.
The article says that access to the database is "free." That's not entirely true. The "free transfer" feature is more of a demo than a real product. To get the "full" results, you have to pay $19.
And where exactly on earth can you put money, that is not accessible online? Under your mattress?
Security will always be an arms race. No one has "thought out" every last possible security loophole. Many haven't even been invented yet.
Like safeguarding your house, you don't have to have an impenetrable fortress. You can't afford it. But you can make your house "just a little" more secure than the neighbors, encouraging a thief to go somewhere else.
Online security is no different, and never will be.
When your bank sends you a security code via SMS, you "know" the security code. This, combined with your password, constitutes two factors.
OR if the bank sends you an email with a link to reset your password, and they then send you a SMS with a code, you also have two factors: the emailed link containing a token, and the SMS code.
Both of these methods are more secure than a user name and password alone.
These H1b's with MS and PhD's might know theory, but can they get things done? In my experience, not very many of them can.
The best programmers got a BS degree because they knew they needed one to qualify for a lot of the good jobs out there. But it was a formality, a necessary evil. They couldn't wait to get their degree so they could leave school and start being productive. The ones that stay for higher degrees tend to be the ones that are good at school, or theory, not necessarily good at practice.
This tendency means more opportunities for the "rest of us."
Because if there is, people will click it, just to make it go away. They won't notice that you can go to a link for more information. They will just click the OK button and maybe try again. That's what OK buttons are for, after all!
My two sons went to a school where cell phones were banned during the school day. Students were required to keep them in their lockers. If any phone was discovered, it was immediately confiscated, and could only be returned to the student by having a parent come to the office to claim the phone.
Did it work? Not in the least.
One of our sons told us that "everybody" had their phones with them every day. They learned to keep them on silent, and away from the eyes of staff. Our son admitted that he was among the students flouting the rule. Never once did we have to claim his phone.
Nice thought, but these pouches aren't going to keep phones away from the students.
When you're writing Web apps, you only have to test the current version of Chrome and Firefox. But IE, you've got to test IE 11, IE 10, and maybe older versions, all separately, because they aren't backward compatible. With one fewer version of IE to test, suddenly a bunch of QA people will have time on their hands!
Functional programming was never big, historically. Javascript, while not a purely functional language, is more widely used as a functional language than any other language in history. No other functional language has "made it big," beyond a few radical believers.
Remember XSLT? That's probably the number 2 most widely used functional language.
Before that, there was only the RPN calculator. Everything else was procedural.
Just like on CSI, when they find a glint of light reflecting off a lamp, magnify, and enhance the image so they can figure out who the killer was. Easy peasy!
Scientists are steeped in theory. They have often studied for many years in universities, and may work their entire lives in a university. Their professors' teachings have been drilled into their heads. They know these teachings to be true.
Inventors and entrepreneurs are all about trying to make something new, so they can sell it. They don't really care what the professor said, they just want to make money.
Thus, the scientists is shocked by what the inventor proves to be true.
Slashdot Mirror
A dog is no match for a cat in a fight. When a cat wants a space, you don't need a "smart" door to keep dogs out, the cat will do the job all on its own! Each dog needs to learn the lesson only once.
Well, let's see...
- Because you want to know what pages of your site are being used, and which ones aren't.
- Because you want to know what browsers you need to support, based on what your users are using.
- Because you want to do A/B testing of a new feature.
- Because you want to know minute-by-minute the load on your Web server.
If you are running a personal site, then yeah, who cares. But if you have lots of users, who complain when things don't work, you need analytics. And...Google Analytics is easy to implement and very rich in features, not to mention, free.
These two features might help spur sales of another generation of smartphones. Until then, why bother?
Everybody on slashdot knows now. Does anybody else matter?
This is an excellent point! I hadn't considered this aspect before. One cannot effectively write code while listening to a person speaking, but it is possible to write code while listening to music. The same principle applies here.
Maybe. One problem will be that variable names are not words, they are made up, and often are a set of words strung together, often with random abbreviations. It's hard to imagine any voice recognition system being able to correctly spell such names correctly. I personally don't want to spell my variable names, letter by letter!
If you're trying to write code, or anything longer than a text message, you definitely still want to use a keyboard. Voice recognition has come a long way, but it's still a far cry less accurate than typing.
I'd guess that Android software is the number 1 use of Java these days. But Oracle says Google's version of "Java" doesn't count, and they have to stop using it. If they do that, Android developers will go where Google tells them to go, they won't stay behind to use the "pure" Java language from Oracle.
I actually do genetic matching, and have worked for Family Tree DNA. I can tell you that it is not at all possible for two unrelated people to be considered a "match," unless you are talking about very old tests that match only 12 data points.
Modern tests, including FTDNA's autosomal test, compares more than 700,000 markers. Thousands of these markers (SNPs) in a row must match, in order to be called a "match."
It is true that this method is still based on statistical probabilities, but the difference between unrelated people and related people is stark, when viewing these results. They not only can show whether two people are related, but also how closely they are related.
Family Tree DNA's algorithm does not use phenotype matching, it uses SNP matching. For a match to be considered positive, thousands of SNPs in a row must match. This type of matching is much more reliable than what you seem to have experienced.
https://www.familytreedna.com/...
The article says that access to the database is "free." That's not entirely true. The "free transfer" feature is more of a demo than a real product. To get the "full" results, you have to pay $19.
https://www.familytreedna.com/...
And where exactly on earth can you put money, that is not accessible online? Under your mattress?
Security will always be an arms race. No one has "thought out" every last possible security loophole. Many haven't even been invented yet.
Like safeguarding your house, you don't have to have an impenetrable fortress. You can't afford it. But you can make your house "just a little" more secure than the neighbors, encouraging a thief to go somewhere else.
Online security is no different, and never will be.
SMS counts as "something you know."
When your bank sends you a security code via SMS, you "know" the security code. This, combined with your password, constitutes two factors.
OR if the bank sends you an email with a link to reset your password, and they then send you a SMS with a code, you also have two factors: the emailed link containing a token, and the SMS code.
Both of these methods are more secure than a user name and password alone.
These H1b's with MS and PhD's might know theory, but can they get things done? In my experience, not very many of them can.
The best programmers got a BS degree because they knew they needed one to qualify for a lot of the good jobs out there. But it was a formality, a necessary evil. They couldn't wait to get their degree so they could leave school and start being productive. The ones that stay for higher degrees tend to be the ones that are good at school, or theory, not necessarily good at practice.
This tendency means more opportunities for the "rest of us."
I wonder what the KB article will be for "Unspecified Error" or "Unexpected Error."
Because if there is, people will click it, just to make it go away. They won't notice that you can go to a link for more information. They will just click the OK button and maybe try again. That's what OK buttons are for, after all!
Well, perhaps the problem is the "xxxxx" part. If you use an actual knowledge base number, it might take you to something a little more meaningful!
My two sons went to a school where cell phones were banned during the school day. Students were required to keep them in their lockers. If any phone was discovered, it was immediately confiscated, and could only be returned to the student by having a parent come to the office to claim the phone.
Did it work? Not in the least.
One of our sons told us that "everybody" had their phones with them every day. They learned to keep them on silent, and away from the eyes of staff. Our son admitted that he was among the students flouting the rule. Never once did we have to claim his phone.
Nice thought, but these pouches aren't going to keep phones away from the students.
When you're writing Web apps, you only have to test the current version of Chrome and Firefox. But IE, you've got to test IE 11, IE 10, and maybe older versions, all separately, because they aren't backward compatible. With one fewer version of IE to test, suddenly a bunch of QA people will have time on their hands!
So would Face ID become illegal?
Or will they just ban "bad" use of facial recognition?
How about voice recognition? Shall we ban that too? Yeah, get rid of Siri and Google Assistant!
Remember when they wanted to close the USPTO because "everything that could be invented, already had been"?
That was in 1899.
Now we're here wondering what possible mischief could possibly be invented, that hasn't already been invented?
We are only just getting started!
"Back" to functional programming?
Functional programming was never big, historically. Javascript, while not a purely functional language, is more widely used as a functional language than any other language in history. No other functional language has "made it big," beyond a few radical believers.
Remember XSLT? That's probably the number 2 most widely used functional language.
Before that, there was only the RPN calculator. Everything else was procedural.
Just like on CSI, when they find a glint of light reflecting off a lamp, magnify, and enhance the image so they can figure out who the killer was. Easy peasy!
Because Trump is not an adult.
Scientists are steeped in theory. They have often studied for many years in universities, and may work their entire lives in a university. Their professors' teachings have been drilled into their heads. They know these teachings to be true.
Inventors and entrepreneurs are all about trying to make something new, so they can sell it. They don't really care what the professor said, they just want to make money.
Thus, the scientists is shocked by what the inventor proves to be true.