Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Everybody List What You Think Went Wrong (Score 3, Insightful) 413 413

It has happened over and over and over again, and seems to be the hallmark of this decade in tech: take a working project...

...and that's where I have the problem, because really, I think D2 is terrible, and D1 is far too ridden with bugs and limitations that exist because /. was once running on a 386 in Malda's closet over a 14.4 modem.

Of course, there's a good case to be made that the existing code base should just be fixed, namely:

- Remove sillier numeric limits for D1.
- Unicode. It's 2015, there's no excuse. Page widening is not a problem with CSS's max-width. - Some CSS clean up.

Which would probably not take anything like as much time as Beta was going to, but, oh well...

Comment Re:Everybody List What You Think Went Wrong (Score 4, Insightful) 413 413

1. The complaints about beta I felt were misplaced. They shouldn't have made the beta default for anyone (and perhaps they should have refined it just a little more first...) but I think Slashdotters seriously overreacted to what was an easy to opt-out of test of a new UI. (And frankly, with D1 broken - thanks Pudge - and D2 horrible, I was looking forward to someone doing something about the /. UI.)

2. I'm pretty sure that if they'd covered GamerGate in depth, you'd - based upon what you've written here - been so unhappy you'd never have come back.

3. I go the other way - there was a failure to ensure discussions wouldn't be derailed by trolls and anti-diversity fanatics, especially in the aftermath of a somewhat extreme anti-diversity campaign in one corner of tech. Slashdot's articles were of interest to some of us, unfortunately the massive wave of abusive moderation and anti-diversity crapflooders meant we couldn't have an adult discussion about the issues.

Where we agree however is that, much as I'm reluctant to attack anyone by name, the types of articles that were posted by Haselton were never right for Slashdot.

Haselton wasn't even the first time they did this. Real Slashdotters remember a guy called Jon Katz who Malda brought in largely to introduce original commentary - just like Haselton. It was a disaster. Slashdotters became increasingly annoyed by the posts, just as with Haselton.

Why did Slashdot do it again? No idea. I'm guessing they thought it might be worth a try again, perhaps thinking it was Katz, not this kind of commentary, people disliked.

As an aside, when I used to blog more actively, people (nobody working for Slashdot I might add) asked me if I should offer to write similar pieces for Slashdot et al. Leaving aside my appalling writing skills, this is why...

Comment Re:If you have physical access... (Score 1) 78 78

It doesn't really mean that, though that helps. It means that at some point you must have had a way to inject your software onto it. That might mean physical access to the computer. Or it might mean physical access to the operating system image before it was loaded onto the computer. Or it might mean physical access to the bespoke software image before it was loaded onto the computer.

One scenario, for example. You work for a company that produces software to control lottery random number machines. You insert, suitably obfuscated, code working on this principle into the software before release. The code is audited, but as all eyes are on modules relating to the retrieval and display of the random number, your code is largely ignored and just assumed to be poorly written, not evil, per-se.

Your accomplice then gets a job as a janitor at SuperMegaBall HQ, one of your clients. They're able to use a cellphone to extract the secure login credentials, which you then crack, and said accomplice is then able to gain full access to the computer with the credentials and upload a software update that'll give you the numbers you want.

This is so foolproof I could work as the scriptwriter for "Scorpion". *kills myself*

Comment Re:How soon until x86 is dropped? (Score 1) 146 146

I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest ARM is superior. It happens to be fulfilling a good niche as an architecture that provides decent performance per watt. But you're not seeing anyone wanting to use it in areas where power isn't a concern.

I suspect ARM will eventually be the architecture that's supplanted, not ix86 or ix86-64. Intel's getting good at producing low power ix86 family CPUs - I have one in my tablet, and the mobile space isn't really wedded to any architecture, but the desktop space is.

Comment Re:Update Clashes (Score 1) 315 315

You know, it kinda makes sense, but given that I've had months where I've been unable to play a specific game or two (without turning off various features that severely degrade performance) because "the latest driver" from AMD/ATI has had one issue or another, with no bug fixes available short of running the unsupported beta version, the idea of being forced to upgrade a driver that is currently not causing any problems is a definitely negative to me.

It'd be one thing if display card drivers were always being updated to fix bugs/security holes, but in practice, 99% of the updates I see are actually to support new cards (which isn't something I need or want a software update for), or to fiddle with the hardware optimization in theory to improve performance (which might be useful, but there's no reason to force such an update on people.)

Windows Update needs the ability to "pin" versions much as apt-get does. For security updates, fine, force them, but if an update is solely there to "improve performance" - or will have no affect whatsoever, it absolutely needs to be blockable.

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1, Informative) 181 181

They might cut their bandwidth cost in half. Computational cost for each video will possibly increase

You'll be surprised what can be done with a codec like MPEG-1 if you have unlimited computational power. Much of the point of better codecs is to reduce the computational power needed to achieve a substantial reduction in bandwidth for a given level of quality. So while it'll likely increase, the amount is unlikely to be substantial, not even a doubling of processing power.

Comment Re:How about this... (Score 1) 181 181

Google has gone out of their way to invest in video codecs to ensure there are non-encumbered standards that are in the same ballpark as H.264. There will always be incentive to improve bandwidth by producing better codecs.

I suspect actually that patents are holding back codecs, not helping. Who wants to innovate in that space if you know that whatever you end up with is likely going to be crippled with other people's patents given you'll have to build on the work of others to make something affective?

Comment Re:They do it because of VR (Score 1) 181 181

I get the impression H.265 isn't good enough given what you suggest it needs to do. It's only a 50% reduction in bandwidth compared to H.264. The fact Carmack can just casually announce he's dropping support suggests that the industry itself didn't see it as much more than a convenience.

You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.

Working...