Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I'm not surprised (Score 1) 85

by Reziac (#47923505) Attached to: Canon Printer Hacked To Run <em>Doom</em> Video Game

I hadn't heard about the CoD incident, but ... [goes off, looks it up] holy shit, that's douchery of a high order. Tho I'm not sure the cops had much less douchery... I mean, 60 officers, WTF? I guess he can count himself fortunate they didn't overhear game gunfire and react by opening fire themselves.

If I had to wipe and reinstall Windows with any regularity, yeah, I'd be looking for a different OS. I don't spend all that time and effort getting it all just how I want it, only to have to replace it and start over. Reinstalling is against my religion. I use the damn machine, I don't just play with it. My OS setup is not disposable.

WinME was actually very good about drivers -- the install routine was smart enough to look for one that works even if it wasn't a WinME driver. I'd not seen that before and was suitably impressed. And while WinME sucked donkey balls out of the box, it could be made 100% stable -- turn off System Restore, apply 98Lite in default mode, and it goes from unable to even crash properly, to never crashes again. (Didn't help the sucky resource management, tho.)

But when we stoop to comparing FOSS to WinME... yeah, that shows just how ...unrealistic... their expectations and performance really are. The driver structure is insane. You do NOT build ephemeral software (ie. liable to be updated, possibly often) into the kernel, and not expect to have the whole house of cards fall down too often for comfort.

Comment: Re:I, Robot from a programmers perspective (Score 1) 130

by lkcl (#47923389) Attached to: Developing the First Law of Robotics

Don't get me started on Asimov's work. He tried to write allot about how robots would function with these laws that he invented, but really just ended up writing about a bunch of horrendously programmed robots who underwent 0 testing and predictably and catastrophically failed at every single edge case. I do not think there is a single robot in any of his stories that would not not self destruct within 5 minutes of entering the real world.

hooray. someone who actually finally understands the point of the asimov stories. many people reading asimov's work do not understand that it was only in the later works commissioned by the asimov foundation (when Caliban - a Zero-Law Robot - is introduced; or it is finally revealed that Daneel - the robot that Giskard psychically impressed with the Zeroth Law to protect *humanity* onto - is over 30,000 years old and is the silent architect of the Foundation) that the failure of the Three Laws of Robotics is finally explicitly spelled out in actual words instead of being illustrated indirectly through many different stories, just as you describe, wisnoskij.

in the asimov series there _are_ actually robots that are successful. the New Law Robots (those that are permitted to *cooperate* with humans; these actually have some spark of creativity). Caliban - who had a Gravitonic brain - was a Zero Law Robot: an experiment to see if a robot would derive its own laws under free will (it did). and Daneel, whose telepathic ability and the Zeroth Law were given to him by Giskard. these robots are the exception. the three law robots are basically intelligent but entirely devoid of creativity.

you have to think: how can anything that has hundreds of millions of copies of the three laws be anything *but* a danger to human development, by preventing and prohibiting any kind of risk-taking?? we already have enough stupid laws on the planet (mostly thanks to america's sue-happy culture and the abusive patent system). we DON'T need idiots trying to implement the failed three laws of robotics.

Comment: Re:Commercial Crew Press Conference (Score 1) 99

Boeing got nearly twice the funding for a conservative, unimaginative Apollo capsule

What's wrong with a "conservative unimaginative" design? This wasn't intended to be a beauty contest or to provide geek stroke material, it's a contract for workaday vehicles and services. And as for costs, you've got to remember the difference between the vehicles - SpaceX bid a derivative of an existing craft (I.E. with a lot of the development already paid for), while Boeing bid a new design. Comparing straight up dollars is not comparing like-to-like.

Comment: Re:My Guess (Score 4, Interesting) 99

SpaceX will make $2.6 Billion do way cooler stuff than $4.2 Billion to Boeing. SpaceX is a young, hungry company that is on the forefront of multiple industries. Boeing, while still a great company, is older an no doubt bogged down in more levels of bureaucracy.

There's another factor that everyone is ignoring - SpaceX is proposing a craft that's a modification of an existing vehicle and which is also expected to be subsidized by commercial use. Boeing on the other hand is proposing a craft that's clean-sheet new and has no other customers.

Comment: Re:And the speculation was completely off (Score 3, Insightful) 99

The fact that to deliver the same development and certification process costs $1.6 billion less for SpaceX over Boeing is also interesting.

It's not the same development and certification process - as SpaceX will be flying a modification of an existing (certified) spacecraft, while Boeing's is a new and unflown design.

Comment: Re:well (Score 1) 181

by DerekLyons (#47921079) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Given that Boeing will already be 3 years late to the party, when SpaceX has manned capability up and running this coming January?

The mixed tense of the latter half of the sentence aside... The January test is that of a flight abort, not a qualification or validation flight. (And thus does not represent "manned capability".) The first full-up unmanned flight test isn't manifested until 2016 and no manned flight is currently manifested.

We're supposed to wait another couple of years for manned launch capability

We're *already* waiting at least a year and half for the first unmanned test flight - with the first manned test flight currently unscheduled (but at least a year after the first unmanned test flight according to the original projections). Your argument that Boeing will be "late to the party" and that "we must wait" is thus not based on reality.

Comment: Re:How can I get it? (Score 1) 282

by Yaztromo (#47921017) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

Install iTunes somewhere, sign up for an account (you can do so without providing a credit card number), and download the album. Apple has been selling music DRM free for the last several years, so it's just standard AAC. Once you have it, remove your account, delete iTunes, and add the music to whatever music program you prefer to use.

Unless, of course, you live in Canada, where copying music from a friend is still perfectly legal.


Comment: Re:It's a relationship argument about control. (Score 1) 282

by Yaztromo (#47920949) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album

Sorry, forcing a download of an entire album is *not* giving you an option that "you don't have to tune into". This is not you giving the kids an album you like, this is you strapping them to a chair to listen to it à la "Clockwork Orange". If everyone got an email saying "Click for a free download of the album!" there would be no complaints. (Mockery, perhaps, but not complaints. :-) )

Except this is pretty much exactly how the system was setup.

In "releasing" the album, Apple pretty much just added a database entry for every user on iTunes to say that they had already purchased the album. It was then supposed to[0] show up in your iTunes library as "in the cloud", with an option to download it.

Nobody was forced to download the album. The only way you'd download it without needing to do so specifically is if you had previously turned on the option to automatically download all new iTunes purchases (which defaults to off). And the only way you'd have to worry about using cellular data for this is if you had the option to download iTunes Music purchases over mobile enabled as well (otherwise, it would wait until you're on WiFi). So yeah -- this is completely a tempest in a teapot from people who don't like U2 seeing a free album available for download showing up in their libraries.

Hopefully Apple have learned their lesson. It was a publicity stunt, and while it upset some people, here we are talking about it. I don't think it went off the way they were hoping it would, and hopefully they've learned some lessons in the process.

[0] - Here in Canada at least, it appears the setup for this album didn't work for a very large number of users. I know in my case, the U2 album did not show up on my iPad as it was supposed to, nor did it show up in any of my iTunes libraries. And I do have the auto-download option enabled. In order to get the album, I had to go into iTunes and find the section that shows all your existing purchases, and then select the "Not on This Device" list, and only then could I download the album. And looking at the album reviews on iTunes Canada, it seems that I was hardly the only person to experience this -- nearly every review when I last checked last night was form people trying to figure out how to get their "free" album. I haven't seen this level of complaints outside of Canada, so I'm assuming either a) something screwed up with the iTunes Canada edition of the album's launch, or b) iTunes Canada did something different in order to not run afoul of some legislation (although I can't for the life of me guess what legislation that might be). This situation seems to have been lost in the noise of everyone else complaining about getting a free album, so I haven't heard much commentary on the situation.


Comment: Re:Translation... (Score 1) 181

by DerekLyons (#47920945) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

BTW, I agree with you in regards to Dreamchaser. It is a good enough vehicle that the ESA is even looking at using it, and Sierra Nevada is already on record saying they will continue the development of this vehicle even without additional development money from NASA.

The ESA "looks at" all kinds of things (they even "looked at" the one time darling of the space fanbois - Kliper), and such is about as meaningful as a celebrity endorsement. And going on record as intending to do something you don't have the money to do is equally meaningless.

Indeed the only company that has said they will stop any further development if their vehicle isn't selected is Boeing.

Except for the nit-picky fact that they've said nothing of the sort.

Comment: Re:Not good enough (Score 1) 282

by ChipMonk (#47919253) Attached to: Say Goodbye To That Unwanted U2 Album
There are ways to do it without parading your "charitable attitude" in front of the world. "Don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing," but in Bono's case, his right hand knows, and so do all of ours, whether we want to or not.

So you'll just accuse me of being "jealous." If having his resources goes hand-n-hand with being such an arrogant ass, I have no reason to envy him.

Comment: Re:I'm not surprised (Score 1) 85

by Reziac (#47919069) Attached to: Canon Printer Hacked To Run <em>Doom</em> Video Game

Or with the average laser printer, plug in printer, don't bother with the install disk, select whatever is the nearest version of the HPLJ that Windows happens to have handy. (This also works for older inkjets and some pin-impact printers.)

As to TFA, didn't you know that no device is complete until it can play DOOM? :D

But yeah, methinks if software started from the perspective of the douchebag, 90% of the hacks would go away and the rest wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Comment: Re:Translation... (Score 2) 181

by DerekLyons (#47918233) Attached to: WSJ Reports Boeing To Beat SpaceX For Manned Taxi To ISS

Boeing vs SpaceX? without doing all the number crunching it is hard to make an educated judgment.

This is Slashdot. This isn't about educated judgements, number crunching, or reasoned discussion. This is all about geek fanboyism and that all contracts are awarded solely on the amount slipped under the table being an article of faith.

Other than that, you're absolutely correct - Dragon and (especially) Dreamchaser represent fairly risky designs. Boeing presents a largely conventional alternative. This matters a great deal in the technical evaluation of the proposals, and contrary to popular belief such evaluations play a large role in determining who is awarded such contracts. It's not, by a long shot, just about who offers the least expensive option.

APL hackers do it in the quad.