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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:EMACS Memory Footprint? (Score 1) 133

We do most of our building through a build system, so I set up some compile commands to even do all my building in emacs so I can correct the errors straight from the build log. I've switched VS to an emacs key layout, but it still does weird things sometimes, so I gave up trying to square that circle.

I've spent a lot of time customizing my emacs setup, which I know some people think is a waste of time, but I like the intellectual stimulation of programming in a completely different language and learning elisp. It's definitely not the fastest way to do things, but I think it's good for programmers to solve problems like that from time to time. I've learned how to manipulate buffers and frames (emacs handles frames really badly, BTW--you end up having to write an obnoxious amount of handling code if you want to make sure that things are opened and closed the way you want), I've written major and minor modes, learned how to monitor processes and compilations...it's still amazing to me that using nothing but the editor and the built-in language that I can do so many things without diving into any source code.

(I think you can probably do that command line thing you're talking about--you'd just have to a wrapper around all the commands you want to call, wouldn't you? The emacs specific stack exchange probably has an answer for you, if you haven't checked it already.)

Comment Re:EMACS Memory Footprint? (Score 1) 133

On Windows, with 5 frames open and 89 buffers (some of which have custom modes and highlighting running)
170MB.

In comparison, my Visual Studio instance is taking up over 550MB with very few plugins and way fewer files open. (The only reason I keep it running is for debugging. I do literally all my other programming and building from emacs.)

Comment Re:I am surprised (Score 1) 77

There have been persistent (though difficult to verify) stories that Google makes more money off of Apple users than Android users for years now. This isn't so surprising, since when it comes to purchases from mobile devices, more iOS users buy things, and they pay more per purchase on average.

But more to the point, I don't think Apple has ever been in an open war with Google the way people often think they are.

Google wants to be your search engine, and they want to be in your pocket. They don't care WHAT device you have, they just want to be there. As apps become the most significant way that people spend their online time, Google wants to make sure that you're still doing searches through them, even if you're not using your web browser.

Android is partly about leverage. Without Android, Google's bargaining position is a lot weaker. They COULD decide to get up and walk away and still be pretty profitable. But Android is also about making sure that no matter your income level, Google search is available at all times.

Apple just sells hardware--that's where all their money is. Their software is a point of differentiation, which the Android handset wars have taught us (well, reinforced for us) is the most important thing in a crowded market.

The reality is that both these companies could walk away from the deal and not feel much pain from it. But both companies are better off with the partnership.

Comment Re:Capitalism (Score 1) 77

They aren't, actually. They're only ending the app portion of it. So that means that they won't advertise apps in the app store in iAd anymore. iAd will continue to limp along for no reason that most of us can understand.

(Here's the first line of their announcement: "The iAd App Network will be discontinued as of June 30, 2016. ")

Comment Re:Not really a surprise (Score 1) 212

It depends on who you ask. Fish farmers would claim that you can scale up quite a lot. From what I've read, it doesn't scale very well at all. It tends to pollute the water, attract parasites, and produce a lower grade of fish. You save the wild populations, but the water ends up having a lot of antibiotic runoff, etc.

And where do you put the farms? Are you pushing out a native species by setting up a farm? How much food do you have to bring to farm? Very often, producing 1kg of fish people want to eat costs more than 1kg of some OTHER fish or animal that could be eaten, but has been considered less desirable.

Shrimp farming is actually a great example of all the problems that you can find in farmed seafood. They cut down mangroves and flood them with water to raise shrimp. The mangroves were previously protecting the shores from storm surges, so now tropical storms do more damage. The ponds that they raise the shrimp in are filled with salts and chemicals that foul the water and the soil, so once the site is abandoned, nothing can be grown there anymore without extensive rehabilitation. The shrimp themselves are usually diseased or deformed, and in the process, they had to be fed ground up fishmeal from something caught somewhere else that would fetch a lesser price per unit weight.

Shrimp are a rather extreme example--North American operations are better regulated and less damaging, from what I understand--but they're a warning of how things can go badly wrong if you're strictly concerned about farming over wild catch, as opposed to just doing the least damaging thing.

Comment Re:Public Cam Footage? (Score 1) 186

If it's that onerous to get footage from a particular officer or from a particular day, the problem is with the filing mechanism. It should take seconds to retrieve all the available videos spanning a well-defined set of criteria. "I need all the bodycam footage from these three officers on this day and that day, around 2pm."

If a report was filed because there was some sort of incident, it should be cross-indexed with the date and time and the officer. So even if you just know the person involved in the report, it should be trivial to get to the right blocks of video.

So if that's taking any more than a few moments, one of the things the department should be doing is updating how the information is archived. There are plenty of people with library and archival science degrees that would know this stuff better than me, but they're all about cataloging. Maybe police departments need to hire one of them to do the filing and retrieval.

But moving on from that, there IS the question of reviewing the footage to make sure none of it releases anything that should be protected for whatever reason. Again, some of that should already be covered through meta-data and correct filing, but assuming all the video needs to be scanned, I don't think it'll need to be scanned in real time. People can make broad assessments at higher speeds, and once the video is narrowed down, it can be watched more carefully. An hour of footage probably shouldn't need an hour of viewing time, in general.

This is just another way to make sure that justice and transparency are for the rich. They have the best lawyers, they can afford to pay processing costs for the video, etc., etc. I'm not sure I care how many obstacles there are in the way to making this data available in a timely and cost-effective fashion. I generally trust the police in my country (Canada), but I think it's important for us to keep tabs on them. We're finally in a position to answer the question of who watches the watchers, and it's gross that police departments are trying to throw citizens off by making it too expensive to pursue.

Comment Re: This was _outlawed_ in the USA? (Score 1) 545

It seems like conservatives are usually the ones with 'tough on crime' agendas and making sure there are more police in the streets.

More police isn't even inherently a bad thing, as long as what they're doing is providing a reassuring presence in the community and not arresting people for no reason.

But ultimately, I don't think this is a conservative/liberal issue. The same people that panic over vaccines making their kids autistic or getting slightly dirty are the same people that hover around their kids to make sure that every aspect of their children's lives is regulated and scheduled, and I don't think that's an issue of political affiliation.

Comment Re: This was _outlawed_ in the USA? (Score 2) 545

I guess?

I mean, I think my perspective on the police is slightly different. I'm Canadian, and until just the last few years, I always viewed the Police as people that could help you out. I wouldn't expect the police to do any more than ask the kid if everything was okay, get them to school, and make sure they weren't legitimately neglected. The law as it's written doesn't seem to imply that responsible parents with thoughtful kids should be punished because they slept in and their kid knows the way to school on their own.

I'm not quite 40, but it really was different when I was growing up. The expectations of the Police in the community were a lot different. They didn't draw their guns as quickly and they weren't so interested in arresting people so much as having a presence in the community.

Comment Re: This was _outlawed_ in the USA? (Score 3, Insightful) 545

Additionally, I greatly suspect that he had no idea that anyone would be arrested for this. His intent wasn't to get someone thrown in jail, he just wanted a kid to make it to school without incident. So now he's left with a conundrum the next time something like this happens: does he call the police and possibly get a parent tossed in jail for no goddamn reason, or does he ignore the event (which is probably fine, but clearly he's got concerns) and potentially leave the child in a situation that he thinks is inherently unsafe.

Comment Re:Germany (Score 1) 263

No, that's not true. Several jurisdictions have prohibitions against photographs where someone is identifiable without their consent, even in public, except if the photograph is for the news. Quebec is the one that springs most immediately to mind (since I live here). You're entitled to your privacy, *even in public*, because there's the notion that even if you're out and about, you may still be doing things that are private and intimate in a way that you don't want captured forever in a photograph. (For instance, if you're kissing your partner in public, you're okay with that moment happening with people around you, but you don't necessarily want it to be captured on film forever.)

The key is whether someone is identifiable in the photograph. If it's just the backs of everyone's head or you can't make out any faces, you get a pass.

Slashdot Top Deals

10 to the minus 6th power Movie = 1 Microfilm

Working...