Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Sorry, but Apple still deserves most of the cre (Score 2) 314

Eject a disk by moving it from my desktop to the trash with all the files I want to delete? Makes sense.

Well, to understand this, you have to recall that early Macs had to be able to run off of a single floppy drive. Users might buy a hard drive or a second floppy drive (or if they had a dual-floppy SE, a third floppy drive for some reason) but it couldn't be relied on. Yet they still had to be able to tolerate having the OS disc ejected at times.

So there was a distinction between physically ejecting a disc while keeping it mounted (which was represented onscreen by a greyed out disc icon) so that you could copy to it, and both physically ejecting _and_ dismounting a disc.

The formal way that you were supposed to do this was by using menu commands. The Eject command was for eject-but-keep-mounted while the generally ignored Put Away command was for eject-and-dismount. It was also possible to use Put Away on an already greyed out, ejected-but-mounted disc icon.

User testing showed that this was inconvenient, and one of the OS developers eventually created a shortcut for the Put Away command, which was to drag a disc icon to the trash. It wound up being so popular that it shipped.

Apparently there had been some thought at the time about changing the Trash icon into some sort of Eject icon in the case of ejecting a disc, but apparently this was felt to be confusing or too difficult, so it wasn't done. In OS X the idea was revisited, and now the Trash icon does turn into a standard Eject icon when you're dragging a disc.

In any case, in real life, whatever confusion dragging disc icons to the trash might have caused, everyone got over it basically immediately.

Switching tiled applications makes the one menu bar change? Sure. It's not like moving the cursor half the screen for each click is a waste of time.

It's not; since there's nothing above the menubar, you can just slam the mouse up. It turns out to be faster and easier than having multiple menu bars. The Mac and Lisa groups did consider per-window menubars, but having tested the idea, it was rejected. For example, here's some polaroids of a screen from 1980 showing a Lisa with a menu attached to the bottom of a window: http://www.folklore.org/images... Later that year, the menu had moved to the top of the windows: http://www.folklore.org/images... And early the next year, it finally settled at the top of the screen: http://www.folklore.org/images...

Comment Re:wan port (Score 1) 120

What fucking IP will your modem give you?

Well, I have mine configured to give out leases from the range 192.168.100.100-199, which more than adequately serves my LAN for now. What sort of piece of crap modem do you have, that can only deal with a single client connection?


What fucking IP will things on the switch get?

I just answered that, but I'll repeat myself - Since switches work by transparently passing L2 traffic, they will get an address issued by the DHCP server on the modem, just like something directly plugged into the modem would. So something between 100 and 199.


What fucking IP will things on the router connected to the switch get?

They would get whatever range I configure the OnHub's own DHCP server to give out, exactly the same way it would work with any crappy $50 DLink/Linksys. Most likely I would pick 192.168.101.100-199, if you want an exact number.


How will traffic to and from these IPs be routed outside of your network?

DHCP leases include a gateway address. These can nest (almost) arbitrarily deep. How do you think your phone, connected to your WAP, in turn connected to your modem, manages to route traffic? Nothing magic here, dude.

Comment Re:wan port (Score 2) 120

Incorrect. The Picostation has an omni antenna, but otherwise behaves just like all the rest of Ubiquiti's AirOS devices - It will act as any combination of {bridge / router / SOHO router} x {AP / Station / Client / Repeater}... And yes, a few of those combinations don't even make sense, but it will let you do it (never, ever disable the hard reset button on a Ubiquiti unless you know exactly what you want to do).

I absolutely love my Nanostations - Put one at one corner of an area you want covered, and bam, you will have five bars a quarter mile away in any direction (technically only a 60 degree beam, but it takes quite a distance from the antenna before that starts to matter).

Comment Re:wan port (Score 1) 120

I hate getting involved in this rapidly degenerating conversation, but...


You plug the switch into the LAN port and you plug your WAN connection into the WAN port. Hell the pictures from the article show two ports and two ethernet cables.

Assuming your modem has only one LAN port, you would do better to plug the modem into your switch, then you plug the OnHub's WAN side into the switch. This gives you full speed through the switch to your ISP for any wired devices you have, while not bogging down the processor on the OnHub dealing with non-wireless traffic. If your modem has two or more LAN ports, just connect one to your switch and one to your OnHub.

You would only want to use the LAN side of the OnHub in two, maybe three situations - You have only a single wired device in the whole house you need connected; you have a wired device that uses this hypothetical new Google spyOnYou protocol; and maybe you might put a second switch off the OnHub's LAN port if you had a strong need for an additional layer of segment isolation (and that assumes it truly isolates the LAN side, rather than merely acting as a two-port switch).

And before anyone points out that what I just proposed amounts to making your wired network a DMZ - Your modem already acts as a fully-functional SOHO router.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 449

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

Even the worst "sufferers" of it can't successfully detect the presence of the very thing that supposedly leaves them in agony.

That is complete nonsense. With a bit of training, every one can do that.

the point is not about detecting, the point is about being affected.

"Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure."


Sorry, you are not listening, are you?

Not any more, nope. You've gone full circle with that shotgun o' logic; feel free to just keep recursively quoting yourself from the above two choices until you get bored.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 1) 700

Asking Facebook to follow German law while operating in Germany is somehow forcing "billions of Facebook users" to his ideology?

Yes, because Facebook doesn't exist only in Germany or only in the US.

If I, as a US citizen, want to deny the holocaust on Facebook, FB then has two choices - Remove the offending comment entirely, or at least block it from viewers in Germany. Either of those infringe on my right to express whatever brand of bigotry I may subscribe to despite living in an entirely different country that doesn't feel the need to outlaw critical thinking. I might not get arrested for it, but I would have had my voice silenced as a result of Germany's stupidity.

FWIW, I don't count as a holocaust denier. I arrived at that conclusion through rational consideration of the evidence, however, not because my government told me what to think - And in fact, the latter would make me less likely to believe it; any time the government really wants you to believe something, that raises the bar for the actual evidence a hell of a lot higher.

Comment Re:How about "no"? (Score 2) 700

Here in the U.S., you cannot just say anything that you want without consequences. Hate speech, threats, and bullying are illegal here.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but one correction - Of those three, only credible threats actually break the law (with a few temporary state-by-state exceptions for cyberbullying).

Hate speech absolutely does not violate US law. Inciting to violence against them, sometimes (again, if credible); Ranting until you go horse about the evils of Muslims or gays or Canadians, no. You have every right to hate whatever groups you want and talk about it every chance you get - Hell, you can even do it while running for president!

Several states have passed anti-bullying laws, but not federally, and individual state supreme courts (e.g., New York) have already started overturning them as unconstitutional, and only a matter of time until the USSC does the same.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 5, Insightful) 737

other than typical reactionary hate I don't see what the problem is.

You now have your init daemon providing an alternate attack pathway for gaining privileged access to the system, in a way that completely circumvents the well-established (and monitored by most IDSs) auditing capabilities of the platform.

I'd call that a problem, but YMMV.

Comment Re: double blind testing (Score 1) 449

Never mind following my link, did you even read the one sentence summary I quoted in my original post???

Here, if the World Health Organization doesn't count as a good enough source for you, how about a nice high quality Wikipedia link:
several double-blind experiments have been published, each of which has suggested that people who report electromagnetic hypersensitivity are unable to detect the presence of electromagnetic fields and are as likely to report ill health following a sham exposure as they are following exposure to genuine electromagnetic fields

Double blind. Unable to detect. What part of that don't you people get?

But hey, prove all the haters wrong! If you can do it so much better than everyone else, set up your own study and vindicate all these poor suffering folks condemned to a permanent vacation in a beautiful rural mountain village.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 3, Interesting) 172

Interpolation is WORSE than nothing. you're discarding signal then adding noise in the hopes that it matches up with what should've been there kinda okay.

1, 2, 3, X, 5, 6. Guess the value of X... Congratulations, you just interpolated the right answer.

In the case of what the GP described, though, it works out even better than that, because the panel actually "knows" the right answer, so it hasn't "thrown away" information; it just lacks the luminance resolution to display it. It can, however, interpolate in the temporal domain way, way faster than the human eye can tell, to create a color we perceive as the correct value.

/ Go ahead, twitch gamers, tell us all about your ability to resolve sub-millisecond 1.5% color changes. XD

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...