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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Idiot (Score 1) 258

Just the fact that it it phoning home is enough to reveal some information, such as that the device on the other end is running Windows 10. Looks like it's also trying to discover any other machines on the local network.

Oh, the humanity!

If it's suspicious activity that wasn't disclosed ahead of time, it should be considered nefarious until proven otherwise. Your machine is not under your control ... that's a serious problem.

I'll assume you never use a smartphone, a user friendly Linux distribution (or *BSD ditto) etc.? Even browsing the web would make the machine "not under your control" so I guess you use telnet to communicate with /. servers.

Either that or your post is essentially useless.

Comment Re:What kind of telemetry (Score 1) 258

They gave away at least a few billion dollars' worth of revenue when they gave away Windows 10 for free. So the kind of telemetry they are collecting is at least worth a few billion dollars. Anyone who says different is lying. There is no free lunch.

I would like to augment your point by commenting that Microsoft isn't just *giving* Win10 away, they're *foisting* it as hard as it can, likely breaking quite a few laws in the process.

In your dreams...

So that means the profit they're expected to make off of people running Win10 must vastly exceed the cost of making Win10, AND the cost of fighting off all the lawsuits in the process of ramming Win10 onto peoples' computers. One could argue that perhaps they're expecting all that profit to come from people being exposed to the built-in advertisements and the Windows Store, or people so pleased with the OS that they run out and buy a Surface/Xbox/WinPhone, but does anybody really believe that?

So you can't see any other advantage for Microsoft? By reducing their systems to one they cut down on overheads in development, bugfixing and support. It also improves the public image which took a beating when Windows 8 was released. And that is an important part of their whole business: if consumers begin to consider alternatives, not demanding Windows when they buy a new computer then MS would lose a lot of cash! The alternative for MS would probably be another free 8.x upgrade that took a lot of parts from the Windows 10 project - and that would most likely cost almost as much.
The free Windows 10 upgrade was a one-off deal, if you buy a computer with Windows then you pay real money for that privilege*, it isn't paid via advertisment.
(* or something)

Comment Re:Makes sense (Score 2) 173

So if I read you correctly you prefer the "good-old times" when getting pregnant out of wedlock meant a lifetime of shame?
And your other example looks like an exceptional event, in most cases something like would lead to long time suspension, most likely expulsion and entry into the criminal or social services.
 

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 600

People pay more attention and drive more carefully if there are no white lines.

They also slow down and drive more carefully when there is no seatbelt, and when the road is covered with ice.

Now that is pure bullshit! Here in the real world we like so called _facts_ which, incidentally, show that you are completely wrong. People _should_ logically drive slower in those situations but they don't - and modern features like airbags + misc. break assist features makes some people think they can drive however they want.

If you want to make driving more dangerous in order to make people drive more carefully, then the burden of proof should be on you to show that the net effect is positive. For seatbelts and icy roads, we know it is not: the additional care does not outweigh the additional risk. I doubt if removing markings is a net positive either.

So where are your supporting information that shows that the road becomes unsafe without white lines? I think you grabbed that from the same place as the quote above - your ass.

Comment Re:More nation-wrecking idiocy (Score 1) 600

The severity of vehicle accidents are strongly related* to the speed of the vehicle(s) so even IF it didn't result in less accidents it could be a real gain in safety.

But your " If drivers are slowing down because they sense that the conditions are less safe, then the absence of lines is just delaying people for no benefit." is a nice example of an non sequitur.

(* 1/2*MV^2 - it's the law)

Comment Re:I am not a physicist but... (Score 1) 336

And that is exclusive for China? Nope. The biggest scandals in science that I remember is faked stem cell results from Japan, faked medical research in Europe, faked physics research in the US etc. There have been a number of scandals where people actually died because of the faked research.

Another "popular" thing often mentioned here on /. is the case of the faked milk powder in China. Funny* enough I remember 3 cases of faked olive oil in Europe and a lot of cases of faked alcohol in Europe/US (not moonshine - illegally produced alcohol but using industrial alcohol, methanol etc.) but those are never mentioned, strange?

(* more like tragic)

Comment Re:I am not a physicist but... (Score 1) 336

From what I have read China are claiming a significantly lower temperature than the recent German test, approx 30 million degrees K lower,

If memory serves, and google says it does, the temperature of the sun is around 15 million K. I'm not gonna bother googling it, but I'm pretty sure 15 million K is lower (much, much lower) than absolute 0. So the numbers flat out don't work.

15000000 0 ? Nope, doesn't make any sense.

And why is the temperature of the sun of interest? This article/discussion wasn't about the sun at all, the comparison mentioned in the post you quoted was against another fusion experiment in Germany - not the fusion process of the sun!

Comment Re:Anything the US does is suspicious (Score 1) 286

The US never needs "international justification" to start wars. Really, look at the near term history and the US looks like the "rogue state" they* like to call whoever doesn't like their* boots. Not that the US ever starts a war - not officially at least, how many declarations of war have the US delivered before attacking recently?

(* the leaders of US)

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 337

The Ghz race is pretty much dead unless we invent better transistors.
But there are other ways to raise the speed, like well actually adding more pipelines to the CPU and making it run more instructions per cycle, but this is not as "efficient" as adding more cores.
I did read somewhere that every extra instruction per cycle per core doubles the core size, while adding an extra core double the performance (if people can use it).

Both of those are trivially false. Wider execution scales as n^2 in theory (though a bit better in practice) but doesn't affect all parts of a core so while some stuctures can double in size the core itself will not. Adding an extra core doesn't double the performance for several reasons: serial parts of a program will limit parallel execution (Amdahl's law), synchronization effects will in practice be worse than that stated by Amdahl and two cores will load the shared resources more than one processor.

There also other paths, like decreasing the pipeline size, which make the CPU take less time to recover from stalls, but the smaller the pipeline, less clock you can put on the chip before the transistors actual speed limit come in and crash the party.

You can also try the VLIW thing again, that allows you to create those "superinstructions that do several things at once" and increase the chip size a lot less than actual extra pipelines, but then its not x86 compatible, and its very, VERY hard to create a compiler that use it well.

Transmeta (and Nvidia Denver) uses translation from the target architecture to an internal VLIW format so virtual x86 compatibility is possible.

Finally, there is the golden goose of getting several cores to act like a single, more powerful core, but that's a nutjob dream i think.

It's not (e.g. Federated cores: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~sk... ) but thinking that it is a general solution for performance surely is.

Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 337

There are processors that work in the Terahertz range and its complete bullshit that these processes cannot be scaled up. Why is Intel pushing to arrest processor speeds??? Have classified systems hit a wall??? Can the gap no longer be maintained?

Not even superconducting logic families can run at THz frequencies, that is a total and deluded fantasy. Even increasing processing speed to 50GHz with the fastest technology available in the next 10 years or so is extremely problematic, 500GHz? Perhaps in 30 years using supraconducting logic at very low temperatures - assuming a number of scaling problems can be avoided.
The problem isn't the raw switching speed of components, even transistors used in modern processors have a theoretical maximum switching speed far beyond the frequencies that systems implementable using those transistors reach. Reasons: RC delays in interconnects, leakage current at each transistor etc.

Comment Re:Next year (Score 2) 123

From the perspective of a C# developer, none of this is terribly ground-breaking, and some of it is downright idiotic.

"guard" appears to be a "not-if". Pointless. If I want not-if, I'll use if(!whatever).

Then you fail to understand its usefulness: if is a clear indication that it is a guard(!) and it is easier to read. Some languages have a unless statement which makes code easier to read but this is a statement specific for validating arguments.

"defer" is a clunky way of copying the "using" block from C#, but without requiring the code-by-convention IDisposable implementation. Useful, but could've been better. At least it has notable improvements over the status quo.

It is a statement that have uses but can make code much harder to read if used wrongly. The example in the article illustrates that well.

"repeat/while" is retarded and an unnecessary change away from well-known and accepted language conventions. This is the kind of convention that is actually worth sticking to, and Apple just broke it. "Nice job breaking it, hero."

Surprise! There are other programming languages than C out there, some of which use repeat ... while constructs. So it isn't breaking anything (well, Swift code but isn't that an Apple standard?).

"do" is a sign that their language parser developers are lazy and bad at their jobs, because they can't handle a set of curly braces as a start-a-new-scope delimiter. Fire these lazy bastards.

Easier to read...

"error" is a goto label. It also converts "do" into try, and "try" into assert(). I guess you've got to call it something, and if you make it too much like your competitor's language, people will be skilled across both! A travesty! And who's with me in thinking that "catch let error as FooType" is clunky as shit? It's as bad as VB. C# has this one right: catch(FooType error) ... and done.

Again this is something that makes code more readable. By including the fact that a routine can fail in the declaration a lot of problems can be avoided, the requirement of the try keyword on things that can fail is much better than having it hidden from the programmer. Yes going in the direction of explicit error checking have problems but those are IMHO preferable to the alternative (hidden data passing).

Protocol extensions are nice, and are probably going to be quite useful in keeping your code readable. C# has had extension methods for a while now, and they're quite useful. It's good to see that Apple is adding that sort of thing to Swift, as it can prevent a measure of code rot.

OptionSetType is the same as .Net's FlagsAttribute. Not special, but, again, a nice addition. It even goes a step further and adds easy bitwise comparison handling for you. Again, good on Apple for taking an existing good idea and making it better.

What does it do that Pascal's set type doesn't (except being much more verbose)?

And the last item appears to be an improvement to what .Net developers would call "interop". Any improvements are welcome, as interop is universally a pain. It will never be "right", but it may be tolerable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Remember, extremism in the nondefense of moderation is not a virtue." -- Peter Neumann, about usenet

Working...