Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Mac OS and retina screens. (Score 4, Interesting) 91 91

I have a MacBook Retina which I use for development, it has a 2880x1800 screen, but to you need to go into 'Display' and set it to Scaled and 'More Space' in order for it to render like it has a 1920x1200 screen. So non retina applications the OS reports the resolution to be 1920x1200, then it upscales the application window to 3840x2400 and also does composition at 3840x2400, which is then downscaled to 2880x1800 and displayed. Performance gets even worse if you also have an external screen, because and it also does the same if you have an external 3840x2160 and downscales to 1920x1080. Basically you add an external 1080p screen and it will try to make the integrated graphics render graphics for basically two 4k screens.

When you run in scaled mode like that, ALL applications over-render. Both retina and non-retina. It's why I really suggest people avoid the scaled modes.

Non-scaled displays do not scale. I've verified that at work. So external displays do not over render unless you have a 4k display and you've put it in a scaled mode.

Games are actually one exception. A full screen OpenGL game gets to directly output properly to the screen. Full screen OpenGL doesn't get scaled or over rendered. I've verified this on multiple Apple platforms with OpenGL code of my own. It means on a device like the 6 Plus where scaled output is normal (the 6 Plus has a 1080p screen but has a much higher res frame buffer) OpenGL performance isn't degraded. I even have non-full screen OpenGL code that doesn't get over-rendered either.

My guess is that none of the original article has to do with scaling at all. It's likely they're using something like Cider that abstracts DirectX calls to OpenGL, and has always really sucked for performance. (EA did several ports with Cider and they all had severe performance issues as well.) OpenGL on the Mac also just has general issues.

Comment: Re:One more in a crowded field (Score 1) 337 337

Just like they plan on open-sourcing Facetime?

Most likely, and if something similar to the patient issue with FaceTime crops up I wouldn't be surprised on a reversed course similar to what happened with FaceTime. That said I'm assuming that the hints that they wanted to open source the language at it's introduction combined with delay between then and the announcement of planning to open source meant they may have taken steps to avoid such issues this time.

Comment: Re:No. (Score 1) 507 507

Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.

It's important to note whatever it is you think you were practicing, that's not actually Agile.

In Agile a task can't be done until it's passed QA. You're not allowed to say "Whoops we're in the next sprint guess we can't do QA hur de hur hur." You have to bring the task into the next sprint, and it's considered a failure in estimation (which then should be dealt with by the group.) You then have to bump something out of the next sprint to fit the extra time to finish QA.

Most of the time people say that Agile sucks, I've found that it's usually because engineering or management is abusing faux-Agile practices to ignore all the safeguards. Here it sounds like engineering was ignoring a Agile safeguard (task wasn't done) to cut corners, possibly aided by management who didn't want to hear about any delays or wanted to make a certain date. The honest truth with process is that a process is as only good as everyone's willingness to follow it.

Agile should really be administered by a neutral party for a team for this reason, someone who's not a member of management for that team (common mistake) or an engineer on that team. That way you avoid engineers closing tasks while breaking the rules.

Comment: Re:Microsoft was better? (Score 2) 296 296

Most of the growth that lead to Seattle's infamous traffic was/is equally to the east of Seattle proper.

To be fair, most of Seattle's traffic problems were due to Microsoft being in Redmond, and a giant lake being between Redmond and Seattle, meaning you had few very routes from where people actually lived, to where people actually worked.

If Microsoft was in Seattle (as Amazon is) I doubt they would have affected traffic to the same degree. But, as Amazon is doing, it would have led to a lot of Seattle's residential neighborhoods, especially North Seattle, going through huge changes.

+ - UMG v Grooveshark settled, no money judgment against individuals

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: UMG's case against Grooveshark, which was scheduled to go to trial Monday, has been settled. Under the terms of the settlement (PDF), (a) a $50 million judgment is being entered against Grooveshark, (b) the company is shutting down operations, and (c) no money judgment at all is being entered against the individual defendants.

Comment: Re:/.er bitcoin comments are the best! (Score 5, Insightful) 253 253

They've hardly missed the boat. If Bitcoin really disrupts things in Argentina, then that means Argentinians holding Bitcoins instead of holding pesos or dollars. That would imply they hold a number of Bitcoins worth some vaguely similar amount to what their current cash holdings are worth. Given that there are about $50B USD worth of pesos, and only $3B USD worth of Bitcoins, then either the price goes up a bunch or Bitcoin isn't actually being all that disruptive.

Comment: p-value research is misleading almost always (Score 5, Interesting) 208 208

I studied and tutored experimental design and this use of inferential statistics. I even came up with a formula for 1/5 the calculator keystrokes when learning to calculate the p-value manually. Take the standard deviation and mean for each group, then calculate the standard deviation of these means (how different the groups are) divided by the mean of these standard deviations (how wide the groups of data are) and multiply by the square root of n (sample size for each group). But that's off the point. We had 5 papers in our class for psychology majors (I almost graduated in that instead of engineering) that discussed why controlled experiments (using the p-value) should not be published. In each case my knee-jerk reaction was that they didn't like math or didn't understand math and just wanted to 'suppose' answers. But each article attacked the math abuse, by proficient academics at universities who did this sort of research. I came around too. The math is established for random environments but the scientists control every bit of the environment, not to get better results but to detect thing so tiny that they really don't matter. The math lets them misuse the word 'significant' as though there is a strong connection between cause and effect. Yet every environmental restriction (same living arrangements, same diets, same genetic strain of rats, etc) invalidates the result. It's called intrinsic validity (finding it in the experiment) vs. extrinsic validity (applying in real life). You can also find things that are weaker (by the square root of n) by using larger groups. A study can be set up in a way so as to likely find 'something' tiny and get the research prestige, but another study can be set up with different controls that turn out an opposite result. And none apply to real life like reading the results of an entire population living normal lives. You have to study and think quite a while, as I did (even walking the streets around Berkeley to find books on the subject up to 40 years prior) to see that the words "99 percentage significance level" means not a strong effect but more likely one that is so tiny, maybe a part in a million, that you'd never see it in real life.

Comment: Re:Running only Windows on a Mac (Score 1) 209 209

The problem is the drivers.

They won't be signed for Windows 7 and therefore won't load. Also I believe Apple uses ancient intel EFI not standard UEFI that is on modern boards. However, my information could be very outdated so someone can correct me if I am wrong as this was the case late last decade.

Newer Macs can definitely UEFI boot (older Macs notably can not UEFI boot Windows, although they will present it as an option.) Internally, I don't think it's standard UEFI internally. But it exposes UEFI 2.0 functionality to perform booting. I was trying to look up some more info, as I UEFI boot Windows 8 on my Macbook Pro, but no one seems to really keep track of the exact EFI standard Apple implements, if any. I know my 2009 Macbook Pro cannot EFI boot Windows, but my 2013 Macbook Pro can.

While it's possible the new trackpad could be an issue, even if Apple didn't sign the drivers for Windows 7, there really isn't anything stopping someone from booting Windows 7 on a new Macbook Pro. It's not like Apple offers a huge amount of support for Windows installs anyway.

Comment: Re:Running only Windows on a Mac (Score 2) 209 209

"For work reasons though I'm stuck with windows... so I'd love to skip the whole bootcamp thing entirely... but still need the drivers.."

The EFI firmware on a Mac can either emulate BIOS (like any standard EFI firmware) or on more recent Macs, do a UEFI boot. That means any OS, including Windows, that can do a BIOS or EFI boot, can run natively on a Mac. I have a friend who runs Linux on his Mac. I also have friends who run Mac Pros running Windows only because at the time Apple was getting special deals on Xeons from Apple, and they were way under what an equivalent PC cost. So they just bought a Mac Pro, wiped it, and installed Windows.

All Boot Camp does is partition the disk, it doesn't do anything at all after the partitioning, given that the rest of the capabilities are built in to the firmware.

You can download the Windows drivers for the Mac hardware separately, but on a lot of machines most things will just work using the Windows and OEM drivers. On my Mac Pro everything basically just works, but I don't get some things like an HFS file system driver or the fancy keyboard volume controls until I install the Boot Camp drivers. Sometimes the mobility GPUs don't work with the standard drivers. But for the most part, a Mac is totally just a generic Intel PC that can also run Mac OS. When it's not running Mac OS it acts exactly like a generic Intel PC. I even just install the Windows AMD drivers directly from their site for my Apple branded desktop GPU.

Comment: Re:Why is bitcoin popular again? (Score 5, Insightful) 254 254

Fortunately, bitcoin allows multi-signature escrow. That permits the escrow service to decide who gets the bitcoins (buyer or seller), but doesn't let them run off with them. It's not perfect, as it can't prevent collusion between escrow agent and either party against the other party, but it does prevent the simpler forms of "just run off with the money". Why it isn't in more widespread use yet, I have no idea.

Comment: Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 1) 416 416

We are beating each others to pulp on issues like abortions / police brutality / TSA at the airport while other countries are rapidly gaining grounds

"Why aren't we talking about how great at playing fiddle we are? All I see people talking about is how Rome is burning."

If it makes anyone feel better, the Chinese version of this guy will be China's downfall. While China is busy worrying about the strength of their economy, they're literally turning their major cities into giant clouds of pollution. The dip in their life expectancy will probably send their health care costs sky high, and not being able to gently onramp into a super power scale economy will lead to huge political issues down the line.

But hey, at least they spent all their time worried about other countries instead of themselves.

Comment: Re:No, It's NOT illegal (Score 1) 609 609

She's released emails to congress. And the congressional committees said there were gaps of months between emails.

She released emails to congress. Not all her email. That's why the federal government doesn't have her emails. If Congress had all her emails we wouldn't be here right now. Congress does not have all her emails, which is why we are talking about this. It's also why no one has an official record to pull these emails from.

Again, I'm not dismissing the accusations against her, but I am saying that because Congress doesn't have the full record, it's not enough evidence of anything, and it's disingenuous for senators to make claims based on that data set. But senators making disingenuous claims while knowingly not having the complete picture is nothing new.

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis

Working...