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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Programming (Score 1) 566

I'm sorry, I tried to read your post, and Culture20's post, with your reasoning in mind, but everything that was written reduced to "words", and then to letters, and then to dots on my display, all the same thing, no meaning remaining at all.

So I think I'll stay with "coding" and "programming" taken to mean making computers do things for us. Yes, "coding" applies to a markup language. "Programming" does not. From TFS: "Olga Khazan writes in The Atlantic that learning to program involves a lot of Googling, logic, and trial-and-error—but almost nothing beyond fourth-grade arithmetic."

Now. Let's say you are ejected from school on the first day of fifth grade. You passed 4th grade with flying colors, though. Now you are sent to a desert island with a computer. Alone. No network. No books. No communications. No reference materials on the computer. Just you, an abundance of tropical fruit and fish, your grass hut and a computer, let's say solar-powered. You are not going to be able to program it until, or unless, you figure out a great deal more than "fourth-grade arithmetic."

Programming. It actually means something more than piddling about with markup language and 4th grade math.

Comment 3D programming requirements (Score 1) 566

Linear algebra (matrices) and trig are essential for doing 3D graphics.

Trig is. Matrices aren't. Translation, rotation, scaling, texturing, light and shadow simulation -- all can be done without matrices. Matrices have nothing inherently linked to 3D about them. They are simply a neat way to concatenate operations and/or factors that can be, but don't have to be, used.

Comment Re:What About Nutrition? (Score 1) 107

Centralizing agriculture far away and transporting pesticides and fertilizers to that site and then transporting the produce, sometimes half-way across the globe, represents a huge waste of energy, with the pollution that goes along with that.

Well... maybe. I've heard differing analyses on this. It's counterintuitive, but there are economies of scale associated with mass production. Trains are incredibly efficient, and so are the massive container ships: the square-cube law means you're moving more stuff and less vehicle. Local produce carried in the back of a pickup truck can burn as much fuel in 50 miles as a thousand miles in a freighter. There are similar economies of scale on the inputs: dragging fertilizer to a thousand local farms will be less efficient than one tanker full of it.

That's far from the whole story, of course. Local foods can take better advantage of local conditions (including less pesticides), can be better varieties since there's less shipping, are often mixed-use rather than monocultures. I know a local farmer who uses no fuel whatsoever on his farm... though a fair bit of energy is used hauling his produce from the country to the city, around 50 miles.

I do prefer to eat local when I can, but the fuel advantages aren't nearly as overwhelming as it might seem.

Comment Re:As they say (Score 1) 164

Mostly that if it actually did kill a lot of people, the corporation would take a lot of heat for it. The corporations do frequently try to push the limits on that, and the punishment for that isn't nearly severe enough. But they do actually take considerable steps to avoid having it happen accidentally, and it's really not in their best interest to do it deliberately.

The biggest problem is in ground beef. If you add one infected animal to the hopper, you can make millions of pounds of meat dangerous. That's expensive.

Note that I'm not a fan of industrial meat production, and I avoid it. That has more to do with concern for animal welfare during their lives, and with flavor: if an animal is going to die for my dinner I want it to taste less bland than the meat you get at grocery stores and most restaurants. Plus, a few environmental issues. And yeah, safety is a bit of a concern... but they do want to avoid killing people. Bad for business.

Comment Re:Same old story... (Score 4, Interesting) 107

Here in the UK, developers are on the hook for flood risk minimisation etc for years afterward, and have to pay a bond which they only get back after so many years without any flood damage occurring in the development - the bond is set at a level where if they spend the money on the flood defences the developer will profit if they get the bond back.

Plus, "flood plains" are often a misnomer - my house is in a flood plain, except the river is 200 metres away and 8 metres below ground level, and if it flooded then the entire city would be in a heap of trouble. It hasn't flooded in 150 years, and the defences are such that flooding will be done upriver outside the city, but still my house is classed as being on a flood plain...

Comment Re: Programming (Score 1) 566

Math is finding patterns and proving things by manipulation of symbols in a formal language.

Programming is finding patterns and proving things by manipulation of symbols in a formal language.

IMO, unless you are into true comp-sci or engineering implementation programming projects, the need for advanced math is overblown.

The article is still wrong though. The common exercise between ALL programming and math is one fundamental step:

PROOFS.

Algebra, being able to look at a problem, break it into smaller pieces, simplify, and implement. Algebraic proofs ARE programming.

-Rick

Comment Re:36 hours? (Score 1) 44

Yes, it HAS been beaten to death.

The 360.1 and .2 have at least 24 hours and usually far more hours of battery life per charge with normal use. When I get home from work after 9 hours off the charger, it usually has about 75% battery remaining.

As long as you can go a waking day (16-18 hours) on a charge, it doesn't matter. You charge your phone every day, so you charge your watch every day. Put it on the charger before bed.

No big whoop. I have used the 360.1 for a year. Not ONCE have I ever needed to charge it more than once in a 24 hour period. Oh, and if you really did have to charge it and put it back on (can't imagine why) charging it is very fast- like 20 min to 80% or something.

Comment Here are the differences (Score 1) 44

I have been wearing it for a year, hardly ever notice the slice at the bottom of the screen. And I know several people who also have the 360 and none of them really notice or care. Having the light sensor that goes with it is FAR more important, trust me. I would love to have BOTH a light sensor and no cut out to go along with the tiny bezel, but that is still just not really possible.

If I could have any change for the 360, it would be either thinner or always-on display (for non-sport). The 360.2 offers neither. Everything else is fine in the first version (display res, battery life, speed, charging, style, reliability, functionality, etc). The 360.1 has been a really solid and decent smart watch.

Here is my take on the changes coming with the 360.2 from what I could gather from different sources:

Better
* Faster processor
* More cores
* Higher resolution
* Lugs for better looks and easier band changing
* Three sizes: Same men's 46mm dia, new men's smaller 42mm dia version with wide band, and women's 42mm with narrow band.
* Larger battery (in the 46mm version only)
* Moved button for easier access
* Sport version with hybrid, transflective, always-on display

Same
* Same storage & memory :)
* Same light sensor and other sensors :)
* Same bluetooth and WiFi :)
* Same thickness :(
* Same wireless charging :)
* Same lack of speaker :|
* Same display tech, except sport version :|
* Android Wear :)
* Small bezel with angled cut glass :)
* Same tiny slice on bottom of display for light sensor :|

Other
* Stone leather band not available for men :(
* Lack of always-on-display version for non-sport (bummer)
* Unknown weights
* Unknown availability of sport version- non-sport preorders now

Not sure if I will upgrade from the 360.1 to the 360.2 or not. I am quite happy with the first version at this point. The new features are compelling enough for me, but I was hoping for either an always-on screen or a thinner watch. Since I don't do "sports watches" (plastic/silicone=gross), I would have neither improvement. I could go for the SMALLER men's (since I can't have thinner), which would likely be less stress on my wrist (CTS), but smaller = harder to read for my older eyes, and I wouldn't gain the extra battery (not that I really need it- almost 2 days is more than enough right now). But they also dropped the color band I want (stone grey). Decisions, decisions....

Comment Re:It's just handy (Score 1) 44

>Note that I said the Apple Watch at the start of that, because although the Pebble Time has some nice features

I don't disagree with your posting, but I am puzzled as to why you are going on about the Apple and Pebble watches, when the topic is the Moto 360. You weren't replying to anything, so it seems a bit odd.

"Don't try to outweird me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you free with my breakfast cereal." - Zaphod Beeblebrox in "Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy"

Working...