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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Push technology is for phones, not computers (Score 2) 197

by Akaihiryuu (#49475489) Attached to: Chrome 42 Launches With Push Notifications
Yes, push is great for mobile devices. Because you can close the application and put the device to sleep, and you can still get notifications. That said, even on my phone, the browser does not have this. Why would it? Push is for things like messaging programs, so you can get messages without keeping the device awake and using battery. For computers? Not a chance. There is ZERO reason to have this on desktop PC's even for things like IM programs.

Comment: Re:I'll bet the effect is very mild. (Score 1) 186

by Akaihiryuu (#49473653) Attached to: Acetaminophen Reduces Both Pain and Pleasure, Study Finds
People don't realize that it is extremely toxic to the liver in anything above a normal dose, and MUCH MUCH moreso if alcohol is involved. If alcohol is involved 1 tablet is enough to send you into liver failure. That said, I get sinus headaches frequently due to allergies, but I only take a half dose of generic excedrin when I get one, and it usually takes care of it right away. That has 250mg of acetaminophen, 250mg of aspirin, and 60mg of caffeine. Supposedly, otherwise healthy individuals who do not consume alcohol can tolerate up to about 4000mg/day (but some researchers disagree and think anything over 1000mg/day is bad). Either way, acetaminophin should be "do not take more than you absolutely need".

Comment: Re:UAC is for idiots (Score 1) 187

by Mr Z (#49456381) Attached to: LG Split Screen Software Compromises System Security

Yep. I've disabled both Flash and PDF plugins, both of which are common attack vectors. I also run AdBlock, as compromised ad servers are a very common attack vector. Net result is that I've hit 'cancel' once on a UAC prompt that I didn't think was justified.

The thing is, even after a stint as a UNIX admin at a university—a hostile environment if there ever was one—and even finding a couple Solaris security holes that lead to root escalation, I still managed to eventually, one day, get a UAC prompt that didn't make sense to me, and so I mashed 'cancel'. I don't even remember what it was, but it points to the fact that you always, always need to be on your guard.

I really dislike the lack of control I feel when using a Windows box. All my personal machines at home are Linux boxes, except one WinXP system I use for specific tasks that require Windows. And on those Linux boxes, I do damn near everything as an unprivileged user. I only sudo to install packages that come from a verified source, such as the latest GCC.

Comment: Re:UAC is for idiots (Score 1) 187

by Mr Z (#49456365) Attached to: LG Split Screen Software Compromises System Security

UAC pops up very infrequently for me. The few places it does, I expect it to. I would actually be a little squicked if it didn't.

Given the amount of piggy-back and drive-by malware out there for Windows, I actually kinda like it. Sure, I think I've hit 'Cancel' exactly once on a UAC prompt, but I've never had my Windows box infected with a trojan.

And yes, I consider myself a power-user. Hell, I've been running Linux on my personal machine since '93, and have at least two Solaris patches that I can point to for root exploits I've helped uncover. I architected the security system on an entire family of processors.

Comment: Re:Interlacing? WTF? (Score 1) 113

by Mr Z (#49423125) Attached to: Turning the Arduino Uno Into an Apple ][

I came here to say pretty much exactly what you did. The funky addressing saved a chip. It's pretty widely documented / known.

Yes, the video used opposite bus phases from the CPU (and doubled as refresh counter for the DRAMs), so there were no wait states due to video fetch. But as you point out, that has nothing to do with the Apple ]['s weird video memory map.

Comment: I hide Easter Eggs (Score 1) 290

by Mr Z (#49420681) Attached to: Is This the Death of the Easter Egg?

I've hidden Easter Eggs in all the Intellivision games I've sold, and in at least one program I've written for internal use at work.

I don't get to touch the software my company sells. At least not the software that would lend itself to Easter eggs.

But for my Intellivision game work, I've hidden a rendition of my face, a modified "hot pepper" version of a menu, entire other games, and dedications to family. I don't intend to stop.

Comment: Re:Not a 6502 (Score 1) 140

by Mr Z (#49402221) Attached to: Building an NES Emulator

The Atari 2600 uses a 6507, which is a 6502 die in a smaller package—fewer address lines pinned out.

The Ricoh chips in the NES use an exact copy of the 6502 die layout, plopped in a larger chip. Go have a look. You can see the 6502 portion in the lower right hand corner. (Here's the original MOS 6502 for reference.)

When I say exact, I mean darn near exact: They differ by 5 transistors, apparently, representing a surgical excision of decimal mode.

So yes, the part number is technically not 6502. But, that's really a technicality. It's the same layout and everything, packaged in an SoC. The relevant part to the programmer is that they can pull up a 6502 opcode chart / timing chart and start crackin' away and it'll work just as they expect, undocumented opcodes and all.

Comment: Re:Tell me something new (Score 1) 140

by Mr Z (#49402105) Attached to: Building an NES Emulator

If you read up on the architects, they intended for the zero page to be "like registers," to allow the accumulator architecture to be reasonable to program. Look at all the addressing modes (direct, indirect, indirect-indexed, and indexed-indirect) that leverage the zero page quite heavily, and compare those to the various indexed addressing modes on, say, an x86.

The low cost of zero-page access made those addressing modes practical.

Sure, calculation results always landed in A, and you quite often needed to move A to other places, but direct access to the zero page was very, very cheap. To do math without it would have required additional data registers.

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354