So, the trolls exist, they drive women away from seeking jobs in the tech field; but it's actually a propaganda war by women to make themselves seem oppressed?

Because, even in that first day*, the topic was not "Is it right for a journalist to sleep with a game developer"? Frankly, even if that was the topic, it's meaningless. Any real journalist might be in a relationship with could end up being someone or involved in something they eventually write about. It's journalistic ethics to step back and say "I can't write about this, I'm too close." If that is truly a complaint, state it for the entire profession and stop targeting the women who might be linked to the journalists. It isn't the journalist's SO that has the ethical issue.

At no point was that the actual discussion being held in the vast majority of subr or 4chan boards. It was a panic of "a woman developer slept with a guy, she must have done it for trade for good reviews." No proof was offered, it was assumed that "if a shitty game" (to quote others) "could get green lit on steam, it had to have inside help."

*The second problem is that this wasn't the first day of "gamer gate". The storm over Depression Quest getting green lit on Steam was already rolling before then. The trolls had been threatening Anna Sarkisian for over a year about her documentary about "misogyny in video games". The "five guy" blog post was what many of the others latched on to in order to make their trolling seem "more appropriate" . . . as if any game developer's sexual habits are grounds to send them death threats, publish their home addresses and the addresses of the people someone claims they slept with, or any of the other harassment that followed.

And if the GGers tactics were not so egregious, driving women from their homes and threatening their safety and life, I could agree with you that ignoring them is the best policy. But, let's look at the actions: Chris Klewe, a male gamer, posts some rather disparaging remarks about "GGers" . . . nothing happened. Felicia Day, a female gamer, posts that this had scared her even though she isn't linked to it, and isn't a game developer; and since "how dare she speak about us" is apparently how GG rolls, her private information, address, phone number, etc, is all published publicly for other to harass her.

If this weren't an attempt to silence the voice of women in video games, they would have a much better time convincing the world of their real complaints if they stopped harassing just women. Feminists (not in quotes because there is real post-gender and post-3rd-wave feminism that is not "white women over white men" in this discussion) don't take kindly to being told "You have no place in this discussion, guys are talking about guy issues; gaming is obviously a guy only issue because we make up 99% of gamers". The feminist response, prior to GG, was simply "And we are trying to develop games that women will like as well, so the community of gamers expands." . . . which lead to GG's response of "Evil women are trying to destroy male-dominating games by . . . . making games women will play? No, that's not a good reason, oh look, someone might have used sex to get something. Since we haven't gotten to do the same, let's slut-shame everyone!" and devolved into race-baiting caricatures based on NeoNazi agitprop and actual Nazi propaganda.

hey, /., just because I used the word 'troll' doesn't mean the lameness filter needs to be involved. I'm referring to those in the GG movement who the rest of the movement sees as the extremists. Doesn't mean I don't think they are the actual core of the GG movement, but since some otherwise rational people think that way the word is a valid term to describe the difference.

Eonn, is that you?

That exists for indie sites, HAD was one of those once. It now has corporate backers, who did not mind the original Tektronic article but who seem wary to expend that much defending a suit.

Were they still a small indie LLC, with little to no resources, they could probably get a Pro Bono lawyer and have fun with it. What would be the worst Tektronics could win? The domain, if things were structured well; but not even the content (posts owned by poster, sub-license to a new LLC to set up a clone site, blah blah blah). But that isn't the case anymore. With a real bank roll behind them, and big advertisers, a lawyer is more likely to ask for money and a suit could be pretty damaging. If their advertisers pull out, the site goes away.

What confounds me is that Tek went after HAD in the first place. HAD didn't discover the hack, they just posted a link to someone who had a demo key that they had to return, an EEPROM reader that they hooked up, and the brains to spot a publicly available string and wire up another EEPROM to do the same thing. How did HAD suddenly become the party that needs a suit? Other than them just having deeper pockets that Joe Random Hacker.
And maybe Tektronics is busy with a breach of NDA or some other suit against the guy who tinkered with the EEPROM key that he was being loaned.

Disclaimer: I read HAD daily. I hope to get some hacks up there eventually, so maybe I have a vested interest in defending them.

You do acclimate to caffeine, though. Caffeine blocks adenosine receptors, which would normally absorb the adenosine released into the brain, and as a consequence your body releases adrenaline when it tries to make you tired and fails. That's the real 'caffeine crash', the big bottoming out after an adrenaline rush. Keep ingesting enough caffeine, and your nerve cells respond by creating more adenosine receptors; that means you need more caffeine to block out the same amount of adenosine. It's not huge, since you are only talking about the tiny amount that gets into the brain, as the rest of the nerves don't respond quite the same, so 'addiction' isn't the giant issue that it is with other drugs.

This is not to justify the Mormon position about drugs, as my thoughts on the matter are "could I see the list of those available?", but to dismiss the idea that caffeine is somehow different from other drugs.

The article mentions sandbox tools that allow admins to test applications and see what the code and the libraries are really doing, but doesn't name any of them. Any /.ers know if there are FOSS or BSD tools of this sort? Or even cheap proprietary ones? I read the code for any library I use, and I try to add some assert() like statements where the lib dev might have felt them unneeded to be certain that nothing gets past memory boundaries. But everyone misses something now and then, and just look at the IOCCC to spot how code that looks like it does one thing can do something else.

As someone who has written a few apps (none for sale, just local use) I feel like the article was taunting developers, "We know how to tell if you've been duped by your library code, and while we'll bash on developers who don't read the code they use, we won't help out those are writing in a new language and might get tricked by some language specification (or in C's case, unspecified compiler-dependent behavior). We'll even tell you that tools exist, but we won't name even one of them." Sure, I can spend all day trying to guess what type of sandbox tool I'm looking for, and install and test 30 or so of them, but that opens up the same can of worms of trusting code that I haven't read.

How many tons is that 6000 spent rods? Then remember exactly how big the Pacific Ocean is and how large, comparatively, a microgram is. A microgram is only 10^-12 of a ton, area crossed is a square fall off rate.

Could it immediately pollute the ocean and cause problems? Sure! Would the fall-out in the ocean cause a long term problem? Not unless there is way more than I expect from those fuel rods; the ocean is huge! One third of the Earth's surface, over half of the salt water on Earth; and you are worried about the toxins that humans failed to plan for when a volcano that's been dormant for a long history suddenly might be a little closer to eruption? Be worried about the loss of life from the volcano going off, and the loss of life from the climate change that a large eruption would cause (famine, loss of utilities, etc).

Or, if you must be scared of nuclear stuff, be scared of the fall out from all the nuke warheads and fuel stored close enough to Yellowstone that would be vaporized in the expected eruption.

We don't know what the OP is attempting to compile. It might be just some code to run inside the Arduino bootloader, or it might be a whole muLinux and a local GCC for the target. Heck, the Debian distro for the BBB might not have a binary for the target muC, which means compiling GCC before compiling the code (worst case). There is also the possibility of OPs chips not being supported in GCC. For example, I just picked up some Cypress PSoC boards; the tools for them are only available right now on Windows. Not ideal, but writing some C so GCC could mangle the analog portions of the PSoC would be more uncomfortable imho.

Unknown target devices, unknown tools, leaves me suggesting something a little more capable than a embedded device. While a windows x86 device might not be ideal for all folks, it might be necessary for some target device's toolchain. I have a several year old quad-core i7 with a geforce 560 and spinning drives that runs on less than 100 watts; one could use an older second hand laptop like that, or a newer even lower power one with an SSD. It's not what the OP asked about, but the OP also didn't provide enough information to presume that they knew what their target embedded muC might always be. And for the general case of other readers who are reading this, I think a small laptop is still the best choice.

Sorry for all the mu, I can't seem to get the html for μ to work

This, 100 times this.

Even an old 100 watt laptop will compile your code many times faster than something like the Black or Ras Pi will. A gig of RAM and swap space, something that embedded systems don't normally have, will make a huge difference. Just throw a small SSD (or boot from USB stick) in an old 2-code i3 with a crap graphics card, and what your code compile faster than a 5 watt embedded device will even launch your IDE or get through the first source code file.

He's a maths Ph.D. not a Computer Science or IT Bs.

I think that, had DF been programmed in a language that was more maths friendly, and less "write it like algebra on paper and let the compiler do magic" C then it might drastically increase the code efficiency. But the times he's been offered help with someone else writing a UI, he grasps that the UI needs a stable game API to make calls to, or a means to pass messages, and the game is not in that state nor is he going to re-do the UI each major version to keep it up to date. The same applies to pathing, it's not his field of maths (go read his thesis, it's very far from code related). A threaded pathfinding library has been offered to him, but since the objects change and the map representation changes, he presented some past problems that libraries couldn't cope with and the coders reading the discussion (myself included) wanted to launch kitten and whale rail guns.

Hell, tiles of his maps already store so much data, that it would make almost as much sense to use a memory intense pathfinding and allow each tile to determine the closest (gem/food/water/workshop of each type/etc) than to have each dward parse the map tree each turn to avoid running into each other.

360 degrees of phase every 1/60th of a second. 120 degrees is 1/3rd that, so minimum of 1/3 of 1/60 or 1/90th of a second....that would be common knowledge to anyone in the USA who hears 60 cycle hums on electrical lines or as line noise. Whether that would be how long the breaker would need to be off to get the generator that far out of phase, I don't know. But I really want to dig through this paper and see if the person I know who does know how long it takes, and warned the DOE and DHS about it, is mentioned by name.

What ever you do, if you think you are under legal duress, DO NOT DO THIS!

The first thing even the local cops are trained to do is to make an image of a volume. They do this for two reasons. The first is the legal: don't destroy evidence that the defense may call into question, and keep a chain of custody. The second is because people have tried exactly what you suggest. If you gave them a password that destroyed evidence, then even if they still had the original drive you have "attempted to destroy evidence" and interfered with the investigation, and probably a few other things that will add to your sentence and provided the evidence of the crime just by doing it in front of the police!

The TrueCrypt 'two encrypted areas in a single visible area' is fine if the police can not prove, through digging through windows, that you regularly keep two encrypted drives mounted (say X and Y). If you always mount both as drive X: and don't have other OS signs that it is used for multiple objects (drive UUIDs are unfortunately telling) then you are safer. But if you normally keep X and Y mounted, they'll want proof of what Y is; saying it's a USB stick, letting them plug it in and seeing it automount to G and not having other ids match would be . . . unpleasant.

Destruction of evidence, hindering a police investigation, and so on. And unless it is done at the flash memory chip level, they could get an image of the data.

What might be useful is something like an old article I read on randomly changing 'root's password on a *nix system, so it was next to impossible to log in as root. A user with permission could still use sudo to do what was needed, and "sudo -i" would be available for a single admin. Or the practice of changing the encryption key to /tmp or the swap partition on reboots; the user has no way to recover the data from those locations once a reboot has occurred. A secure encryption method that keeps even the intended user from using it would be a very had thing to sell, unfortunately.

I read it as just barely changing the vector of the light, not the velocity. All photons travel at c, but gravity could make the path of travel curve more than previously thought.

Neutrinos have virtual particle interactions as well. Only low energy photons seem not to (that I remember diagrams for, maybe they do too).
So ALL THINGS are made by the devil except for infrared light and AM radio. Seems to explain why looking at things makes you question stuff (visible light is a lie!) and only AM radio tells the truth.