Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Automatic updates broke Samsung laptops recentl (Score 1) 23 23

Well, let me put it this way: What kind of crap is Samsung shovelling out that the basic keyboard/mouse drivers which run on basically _anything else_ are able to render Samsung's hardware inoperable?

Plus: What kind of inept stunts is Samsung pulling that their drivers are automatically replaced?

Then again, given their track record with the developer's nightmare that is Tizen, this shouldn't surprise anyone. I mean, what is one supposed to think of a company who thought that an error message like "NAUGHTY PROGRAMMER!!! SPANK SPANK SPANK!!!" is a good idea? (Seriously:

Comment: Re:Sounds like the move of ms office to dotnet (Score 1) 186 186

I think it's more likely a question of: "Does such a move make us money in a non-negligible way?"

Porting Office to Linux would be most likely a zero-sum game - a PC which formerly ran Windows now runs Linux. The amount of Office installations remains the same.

Such a move only makes sense for a company if they're opening up new markets - and currently it's obviously not a big enough number.

Comment: Re:Non-Xbox 360 HID gamepads (Score 1) 186 186

Listen, I don't really care. The original argument was: "It's impossible to connect to live cams and shit!"

Somehow you made xbox controllers out of it, I don't really care and if I searched a bit more it would most likely turn out to be possible after all. Plus, Universal Apps are targetted at touchscreens on tablets and phones. If you really need to run an emulator or something, Win32 ist still available.

Comment: Re:Universal App APIs are too limited (Score 1) 186 186

I'm not exactly sure how you think something like this is achieved on other mobile platforms which also will close apps not currently in the foreground at will.

Maybe you should research a bit before talking out of your ass?

Comment: Re:Universal App APIs are too limited (Score 1) 186 186

Well, they do restrict THOSE specific ones because, for example, you don't access gamepads through the USB / HID namespace. You use Windows.Gaming.Input

They stated the reasons in the clear: "to prevent conflict with other Windows APIs" - you can access those just fine, you just have to use their specific namespaces and not the generic ones.

Comment: Re:Universal App APIs are too limited (Score 1) 186 186

I don't think that there are a lot of Android programs out there which are permanently network connected even when their app is closed.

You also might to want to look into a thing called "background tasks". Those are executed in response to events (like incoming Voip calls) - but a background task that's permanently running and sucking data limit dry? Bad idea on a tablet / mobile.

Comment: Re:Universal App APIs are too limited (Score 4, Informative) 186 186

Of course you can get that to work - you can access USB devices just fine through Universal Apps.

I'm currently doing that myself for a USB measuring device which is used for Physics lessons and can measure speeds, voltage, magnetic field strengths and so on. The vendor's program is written by engineers for engineers - and not so much suited for pupils. So I'm using the Vendor's API and implement a custom-tailored solution for every experiment the pupils have to do.

Comment: Re:It's just joule thief (Score 1) 243 243

There's also a plastic hull to contend with. Plus, such a leak is not exactly "fails catastrophically". After all, we're not talking about strong acids or bases here - the most problematic would be the manganese due to its toxicity, it's a heavy metal after all. But as long as you don't eat that stuff, you won't have any problems.

Look at the ingredients - carbon, wet ammonium chloride and zinc chloride as electrolytes / electron conductors, zinc and mangan(IV)-oxide as the electrodes.

There are quite a lot of battery types out there which are much more nasty. This? This is something you can give your pupils to demonstrate how batteries work - it's that harmless.

Comment: It's bullshit (Score 2) 190 190

It's not even possible in theory. There are several reasons for that.

1. The routing of data is hardcoded into the switches and cannot be changed without physically accessing the switch. The routing table not only determines which devices may talk to which devices, but also the direction of the data flow. This means that a monitor device cannot talk to an engine because the monitor is configured only to receive data.

2. But even if they managed to get the monitor device to send data, the switch would recognize this as a device malfunction (because it's not allowed to send) and disable the port it's sending on. This is not due to security against hacking but more due to "a malfunctioning device should not be able to DOS the plane's network".

3. There are actually two networks, sending identical data for redundancy. Now guess what happens if one of the networks sends different data than the other? Right: The offending port / device gets shut down.

4. The network protocol is a modified UDP protocol (no need for TCP) which makes the network deterministic - data delivery is guaranteed within a certain timeframe. Which means, again, that you need specialized hardware to even talk to the network.

5. And even if you managed to take down both switches, there'd still be a manual override in the cockpit which allowed the pilot to steer the plane without the network.

In essence, you need pretty hefty physical access to modify the planes flight mechanics. Something you will not achieve while the plane is in the air and even very unlikely while the plane is on the ground.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350