Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: No thank you (Score 1) 203

The problem with LGW, STN and LTN is that they are not in London. Not even close. It's a bit of a joke that they even have the audacity to put London in their names. There are of course road and rail connections, but that just makes the journey more complicated and stressful.

Heathrow's "classic" terminals are dilapidated and badly laid out, requiring miles of walking through nasty corridors and passageways to and from the gates - the newer terminals are better but the entire airport is completely space constrained. In fact the whole south-east is completely space-constrained, so there's never going to be a new, fully functional London airport. Crossrail might make it more bearable, but the entire experience of flying in and out of Heathrow is a horrible nightmare. I haven't flown through La Guardia but I have through LAX many times, and that's the only airport worse than Heathrow in my opinion.

Comment Re:Hi I'm Patrick (Score 2) 130

allows anybody to inject unsigned code into internet downloads. Then, even if the user has set Gatekeeper to only allow code from the Mac App Store, the unsigned code is allowed to run

Wrong. Anyone can inject code into any data stream trivially. It's getting it to run that's the tricky part. How exactly are you going to do that? If the code that's performing the download is in on the plot, then fine, but a) you would have to get that code past the App Store review, and b) you would have to expect Apple to revoke your signature with maximum prejudice the moment you were caught, and c) you would still have to work around the sandboxing all App Store apps require to do anything truly nasty. Getting an innocent app to run the injected code is another option, but that's back to requiring some other known exploit, such as a buffer overrun.

The short answer is: injecting the code isn't the problem, getting it to run undetected is.

Comment Tablets not as useful as expected (Score 2) 417

Anecdotally, I'm hearing a lot of people lately wishing they'd bought a small laptop instead of a tablet. It's the typing that's the main problem it would seem. Sure, you can use a bluetooth keyboard with most tablets, but having it right there built-in is a lot more convenient. Combined with the drop off in sales of tablets, it might suggest that the tablet "era" ends up short-lived and will turn into a resurgence for full-fledged laptops.

Apple seem to be aware of this as well, with their latest Macbook Air being only slightly larger and heavier than an iPad but with a usable keyboard.

People are now used to devices with few to no ports, and connecting to everything wirelessly. The days of chunky laptops that have CD burners, ports galore and are nearly an inch-thick are long gone, but lightweight laptops that are really like super tablets seem to be the future.

Comment Re:~1500 App Developers wasted their time (Score 4, Insightful) 73

iOS 2.0 added NSURLConnection. iOS 7 added NSURLSession. Downloading chunks of data and saving them to a file is trivial with the latter, still pretty easy with the former. I'm not sure what you needed to do prior to iOS 2, but that's ancient history - I doubt anyone is still supporting back that far. Point is, using a 3rd party library today when there are straightforward classes to do it in Foundation that have been debugged already by Apple (and will continue to be so) is the only really sensible option. Even if you're writing cross-platform it's easy enough to create equivalent objects you can interface to that wrap other networking solutions on non-iOS devices.

Comment ~1500 App Developers wasted their time (Score 3, Informative) 73

iOS has perfectly functional networking libraries and simple objects that provide an API to them. Why anyone would bother linking in a 3rd party library to replicate that functionality I can't understand. If a vulnerability were found in the iOS libraries, Apple could roll out an update and fix it overnight. As it is, that's ~1500 apps need to be revved.

Comment Re:Just what we need... (Score 1) 142

run a single number to back up your prejudices

How ironic that you decide to take me to task on this - a person who is actually a builder of EVs and a great believer in the benefits of an electric power-train. My point was merely that the OP's claim that petroleum-powered vehicles is the biggest source of carbon pollution is a pile of crap, as your own quoted figures demonstrate. If every car on the planet were replaced overnight by an EV, carbon pollution would not change significantly, and in any case that could never happen.

Of course EVs are the way forward for cars, and I'd love to see it - the sooner the better. But in the real world things change slowly for all sorts of reasons - technology being only one small component of that. You even make the point yourself about the "greening of the electrical supply" - which was exactly a point I was trying to make as well! By the time we're all driving EVs, other factors will be in play that complicate the picture - probably for the better. Hell, the fusion problem could be cracked by then making the whole fossil fuel vs. "alternative" argument go away.

Comment Re:Just what we need... (Score 1) 142

gasoline-powered cars, which is easily the biggest source of our carbon pollution

Nope, not even close. If you want to make an argument, don't just pull crap out of your arse - it just makes you look dumb.

I do agree our addiction to fossil fuels is a huge problem, but moving to EV cars now won't make one jot of difference, because the electricity we use to charge them comes from... fossil fuels. Of course it's easier to replace fixed generating plants with alternative energy, so EV cars will get greener over time as that transition is made. But right now, buying an EV just to claim green credentials is largely an illusion.

Comment Start Scratch (Score 1) 277

The "app" Start Scratch is a scam, in my opinion. My daughter (9) is quite keen on programming using Hopscotch on the iPad, but it is very limited at the moment. At school, she's been introduced to Scratch which can do a lot more, so I figured that it would be good to get Scratch for the iPad so she can use it at home. So I do a search on the iOS App Store and find Start Scratch, which appeared to be the Scratch environment as an iOS app. So I bought and paid the $1.49 - admittedly not a lot. But after some time trying to use it, it dawned on us that it is merely a welcome mat for the Scratch website, and not an actual programming environment at all. It's not even a good front end for the website! And it turns out that Scratch requires Flash, so it can not actually be used with the iPad or any iOS device at all. Totally and completely useless.

I didn't complain because I felt it was as much my own fault for assuming that the app did something useful, since Scratch is otherwise a trustworthy name. Fool me once...

Slashdot Top Deals

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...